'Duck Dynasty' Dad Suspended Following Anti-Gay Remarks

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-duck-dynasty--star-s-anti-gay-remarks-spark-outrage-134231650.html
'Duck Dynasty' Dad Suspended Following Anti-Gay Remarks

.


By Elizabeth Durand Streisand
49 minutes ago

UPDATE: On Wednesday afternoon, A&E, the cable network which airs "Duck Dynasty," suspended Phil Robertson indefinitely from filming, issuing the following statement: "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series 'Duck Dynasty.' His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

GLAAD issued the following statement in response to A&E's decision, attributed to GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz: "What’s clear is that such hateful anti-gay comments are unacceptable to fans, viewers, and networks alike. By taking quick action and removing Robertson from future filming, A&E has sent a strong message that discrimination is neither a Christian nor an American value."

=======================================

The stars of "Duck Dynasty" might be America's most popular TV family, but that could change very soon — because Phil Robertson has made some seriously divisive anti-gay remarks that have sparked instant backlash.

Speaking with GQ, Robertson lamented that when "everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong ... sin becomes fine." So just what qualifies as sinful in his book?

"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 declared.

[Related: How 'Duck Dynasty' Became Such a Huge Hit]

Phil probably should have cut himself off at this point (considering he's a national TV star), but instead he paraphrased 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," he warned. "Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

What's more, according to him, it's basically incomprehensible. "It seems to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man's anus," he explained. "That's just me. I'm just thinking, 'There's more there! She's got more to offer.' I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

Within minutes of GQ revealing Robertson's quotes (which will appear in the January issue), GLAAD issued a fiery response — and the gay-rights organization is none too pleased. This is how they do it. They set a standard for punishment the spreads big enough and strong enough to stop free speech! This is the gay version of playing and abusing the race card as is so often done to punish and destroy innocent people. The guy not only has a right to speak of his principles but this giving gays "special rights " and established punishment standards to be levied on all their critics is very Hitler like IMHO. Obama and his sudden lurch to attack conservatives by using gays and blacks against American standards of decency. The new standard is speak ill of gays at your own financial risk. Obama promotes this as does the dumbass dems and media. -Tyr

[Gaffer]

The whole family needs to tell the producers to take a hike. That's what I'd do.

[fj1200]

He has freedom of speech, he also has freedom of consequences.

[KarlMarx]

I remember discussing gay marriage on the forum of my local paper and whoever disagreed with the gays on gay marriage had their posts deleted. To me, that's what they're all about... silencing dissent.

THIS is what the Gay Gestapo is all about. It's not about achieving equality, it's about you agree with them completely 100% of the time... or else.

Your freedom of speech is to be trampled on to help them achieve their aims. To them, it's a zero sum game.. you give up your rights in order for them to gain some.

And what did the guy say? That we should defecate and urinate in their mouths? No, he quoted the Bible concerning homosexuality.... (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ) and that's basically it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-11&version=NKJV


Gay Gestapo - 1
Freedom of Speech - 0

[Jeff]

This is ridicules , the Gays want to be treated equally but yet people should be fired for stating there opinion about them ?



A&E has placed Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on indefinite hiatus following anti-gay remarks he made in a recent profile in GQ.

What was so bad that at least one said that his comments where "some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication"



During a discussion about repentance and God, Robertson is asked what he finds sinful."Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there," he says. "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."
He goes on to paraphrase 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."


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-indefinite-666808

[revelarts]

He has freedom of speech, he also has freedom of consequences.

would producers be able to enforce similar "consequences" if a show says "vile" things about Christians.
would there be any consequences?

[Jeff]

​Sorry Duplicate post , there is already a thread for this story

[fj1200]

would producers be able to enforce similar "consequences" if a show says "vile" things about Christians.
would there be any consequences?

He works at the pleasure of the producers does he not? Of course he should also be able to sell his services to another producer who may share their particular PsOV.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He has freedom of speech, he also has freedom of consequences. Government plays a big part in the consequences , the motive and inspiration to make those consequences exist. So no the government doesn't get a pass on this and neither does the ffing PC IDIOTS/JACKASSES AND FOOLS THAT PLAY ALONG WITH IT. I absolutely refuse to be punked into obeying this crap. The gays are not normal and are not to be accepted as normal ffk them and the damn government. And don't give me that crap it wasn't the government. Obama pushes this damn gay agenda same as he does his anti-gun agenda and pro-muslim /anti-Christian agenda. -Tyr

[CSM]

He works at the pleasure of the producers does he not?

Hmm, seems to me that they had jobs already and the show was/is a sideline. That being said, I guess the producer can hire/fire whomever he wants. I would also say that the entire "Duck" family could also tell the producer to stick it where the sun don't shine. Aint America grand? Everyone has options!

[fj1200]

What was so bad that at least one said that his comments where "some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication"

They have no sense of scale and feel they must continually escalate the issues to keep the issue "fresh" IMO. Most people just don't care and this does nothing but alienate people who are inclined to not care.

[fj1200]

Hmm, seems to me that they had jobs already and the show was/is a sideline. That being said, I guess the producer can hire/fire whomever he wants. I would also say that the entire "Duck" family could also tell the producer to stick it where the sun don't shine. Aint America grand? Everyone has options!

Tru dat! Not sure if you saw my edit to my post. :)


Of course he should also be able to sell his services to another producer who may share their particular PsOV.


Government plays a big part in the consequences...

Can you point to where the government had a hand in limiting the Duck Dude's speech rights?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

would producers be able to enforce similar "consequences" if a show says "vile" things about Christians.
would there be any consequences? Every time this type of thing comes up about condemning Christians these same people defending the producers actions scream freedom of speech at the top of their lungs and cry about like babies . We have to just accept those criticism but gays and muslims get special protection. They get government promoted protections enforced by citizens that seek to appease big government. I have every right to teach my child the truth about gays .When gays criticize Christians and heterosexuals there is no punishment policy just waiting to be set in motion. Yet we now have a gay card just like the black race card!! Gays are perverts not a damn race.. -Tyr

[poet]

The whole family needs to tell the producers to take a hike. That's what I'd do.


Words have consequences.

[poet]

I remember discussing gay marriage on the forum of my local paper and whoever disagreed with the gays on gay marriage had their posts deleted. To me, that's what they're all about... silencing dissent.

THIS is what the Gay Gestapo is all about. It's not about achieving equality, it's about you agree with them completely 100% of the time... or else.

Your freedom of speech is to be trampled on to help them achieve their aims. To them, it's a zero sum game.. you give up your rights in order for them to gain some.

And what did the guy say? That we should defecate and urinate in their mouths? No, he quoted the Bible concerning homosexuality.... (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ) and that's basically it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-11&version=NKJV


Gay Gestapo - 1
Freedom of Speech - 0






People tend to fear what they don't understand.

http://christiangays.com/marriage/gay_marriage.shtml

And that's basically "it".

[poet]

would producers be able to enforce similar "consequences" if a show says "vile" things about Christians.
would there be any consequences?

Of course there would. Apples and oranges. Moral equivalent.

[poet]

This is ridicules , the Gays want to be treated equally but yet people should be fired for stating there opinion about them ?




What was so bad that at least one said that his comments where "some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication"





http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-indefinite-666808

Yep

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tru dat! Not sure if you saw my edit to my post. :)





Can you point to where the government had a hand in limiting the Duck Dude's speech rights? Here is the entire quote. Context should give the answer you seek. DO YOU DENY THAT OBAMA AND BIG GOVERNMENT ARE ON A PRO-GAY AGENDA? THAT THEY ARE NOW GIVING SPECIAL STATUS TO GAYS AS IF GAY WAS A RACE INSTEAD OF A SEXUAL PERVERSION?


Government plays a big part in the consequences , the Motive and Inspiration to make those consequences exist

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

People tend to fear what they don't understand.

http://christiangays.com/marriage/gay_marriage.shtml

And that's basically "it". HA, always the accusation of opposition being fear driven. I fear no damn gays. I do stand opposed to their damn perversion. Since the dawn of man its been abnormal and known to be a sexual perversion. Don't like the truth tough luck.-Tyr

[revelarts]

Can Poet or FJ
please explain to me what exactly is so "vile" about what he said.

Is it the Bible verse?
Is it that he said that Homosexully is sin , among others.
Or is it the fact that he suggested that a woman's body seems more suited for sex with men than a mans body?

what is So horribly offensive about any one or the combo of those things,
that it cannot be spoken in a public forum without consequences.

should one NOT believe that part of the bible?
Or just never mentioned it?
Should no one wonder aloud about the reasonableness of "alternative" physical attractions?

Is there an objective issue here that of offense?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Words have consequences. So do sexual perversions. :laugh: Deny that while you live in fear of AIDS. --Tyr

[fj1200]

Here is the entire quote. Context should give the answer you seek. DO YOU DENY THAT OBAMA AND BIG GOVERNMENT ARE ON A PRO-GAY AGENDA? THAT THEY ARE NOW GIVING SPECIAL STATUS TO GAYS AS IF GAY WAS A RACE INSTEAD OF A SEXUAL PERVERSION?

I read the whole quote and asked where the government had a hand in the actions? Hint: it didn't.

[jimnyc]

Phil deserves an award for speaking what so many others are thinking!!

[poet]

Can Poet or FJ
please explain to me what exactly is so "vile" about what he said.

Is it the Bible verse?
Is it that he said that Homosexully is sin , among others.
Or is it the fact that he suggested that a woman's body seems more suited for sex with men than a mans body?

what is So horribly offensive about any one or the combo of those things,
that it cannot be spoken in a public forum without consequences.

should one NOT believe that part of the bible?
Or just never mentioned it?
Should no one wonder aloud about the reasonableness of "alternative" physical attractions?

Is there an objective issue here that of offense?

Dr. Ron Smothermon, in his book, Winning through Enlightenment, said of sex, ".....there is an aspect of sex, like all experiences, occurs outside of the world of "thingness", "placeness", and "timeness". Yet, at the everyday level sex is so mundane as to be like the plumbing of your house. It just won't all fit together the way we would like it to. It fits together the way it does, instead. Too bad. The human body has a definite physical form. There are two standard varieties. One comes equipped with a long (sometimes) organ called a penis. The other variety comes equipped with a potential space, in which to put the long (sometimes) organ. People who like to do this are called heterosexual or "straight". There are other individuals who like to relate sexually with individuals with the same body type as theirs. These people are known as homosexuals or "gay". Except for body configuration, and the substitution of certain orifices, the issues and activities are exactly the same, except the creation of new individuals and the issues that brings up do not apply."- Ron Smothermon.

[poet]

Phil deserves an award for speaking what so many others are thinking!!

Why? Because he has bollocks and others don't? LOL

[jimnyc]

They have no sense of scale and feel they must continually escalate the issues to keep the issue "fresh" IMO. Most people just don't care and this does nothing but alienate people who are inclined to not care.

Duck Dynasty's numbers will now go up, nothing like some queers complaining to raise the ratings!

[fj1200]

Can Poet or FJ
please explain to me what exactly is so "vile" about what he said.

I didn't say he said anything vile but the comparison with bestiality is off base.

[fj1200]

Duck Dynasty's numbers will now go up, nothing like some queers complaining to raise the ratings!

Probably right.

[jimnyc]

I fear no damn gays.

Exactly, which is why I always laugh at the made up term "homophobia". Not agreeing with vile and abnormal behavior doesn't mean I am somehow afraid.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I read the whole quote and asked where the government had a hand in the actions? Hint: it didn't.
Since you did not deny this I think it goes a long way towards answering your question. Which is why I included it in my answer to you in the first place. --Tyr

DO YOU DENY THAT OBAMA AND BIG GOVERNMENT ARE ON A PRO-GAY AGENDA? THAT THEY ARE NOW GIVING SPECIAL STATUS TO GAYS AS IF GAY WAS A RACE INSTEAD OF A SEXUAL PERVERSION?

[poet]

Exactly, which is why I always laugh at the made up term "homophobia". Not agreeing with vile and abnormal behavior doesn't mean I am somehow afraid.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/01/the-seven-types-of-republicans-and-how-to-debate-them/#ixzz2ajCfRvxw

Christian Republicans:
These Republicans are hypocrites. They do everything in the name of Christ, while simultaneously acting as un-Christlike as humanly possible. They support the right to carry assault weapons, are pro-war, and completely ignore the fact that the Bible depicts Christ as a liberal who was opposed to capitalism and violence. They sincerely believe that this is God’s country and that God loves us Americans more than anyone else in the world. They think that anyone who is not 100 percent pro-Israel is anti-Semitic. They hate everyone who doesn’t agree with them and think the Bible tells them to… and they hate gay people because they think they are sinners.
The problem with this type of Republican’s views:
They do terrible things in the name of their Lord. They think that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is damned to hell or hates America. They believe that we are a Christian nation even though the Founding Fathers made sure they did not brand this country as a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers wanted a country of religious freedom, free from religious persecution, but these Republicans will never admit that.
What to remember when debating them:
There’s a list of all the quotes that prove our Founding Fathers wanted a country of religious freedom. The link is HERE. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html) Another thing to remember is that the Christian Right is neither. Start asking them questions like “how would Jesus feel about war?” “how would Jesus feel about assault rifles?” or “do you REALLY think that America is God’s favorite country, in the ENTIRE universe?” And, of course, these questions should yield a response that thoroughly proves that they are hypocrites, and continuing to argue with them would be a waste of time.


Racist Republicans:
[DISCLAIMER: I am putting this one almost last for a reason. I do NOT think all Republicans are racists. I have Republican family members who are not racist. This section is only about the small percentage of Republicans who are ACTUALLY racist, because they do exist. I'm not "playing the race card" or "race-baiting," I'm just describing a small group of racists who also affiliate themselves with the Republican Party]
Racist Republicans hate Obama because he’s black. They think that all Muslims are terrorists. They think Obama is a terrorist Muslim. They think anyone with a name like Obama’s is a terrorist.
The problem with this type of Republican’s views:
They’re racist, but they think Obama is a racist. They can’t understand why people call them racists when they post racist pictures or racist comments and then claim not to be racist. Whenever they possibly can, they will call you a racist, to hide the fact that they are actually racists.
What to remember when debating them:
They’re racists. Racists are uneducated bigots. You would have a much easier time convincing an apple tree to start growing oranges.

Extremely Uneducated Republicans:
These Republicans are Republicans because they think it’s cool. They have a Republican friend in one of the other groups listed, so they think they know what they’re talking about. They have terrible spelling and grammar but they expect you to believe whatever they say because they are saying it to you.
The problem with this type of Republican’s views:

It’s hard to tell if they ever made it past the 4th grade. Most of their posts are illegible. They don’t know anything about their position other than what they have heard their friends say. They think Republicans are fiscally conservative because they say that they are, and call anyone who doesn’t agree with them “sheep.” They ignore all historical information that is contradictory to what they say. They are 100 percent blind to facts.
What to remember when debating them:
No amount of facts or logic will ever convince them that their buddies are wrong. You could be a college professor and they will still think your facts aren’t credible. Instead of trying to argue with them, try explaining algebra to your dog. I’m sure it will be much more productive.


Food for thought.

[jimnyc]

Food for thought.

It's not food for thought, it's a skewed view of Republicans that has nothing to do with the subject. Please stay on topic.

[revelarts]

Dr. Ron Smothermon, in his book, Winning through Enlightenment, said of sex, ".....there is an aspect of sex, like all experiences, occurs outside of the world of "thingness", "placeness", and "timeness". Yet, at the everyday level sex is so mundane as to be like the plumbing of your house. It just won't all fit together the way we would like it to. It fits together the way it does, instead. Too bad. The human body has a definite physical form. There are two standard varieties. One comes equipped with a long (sometimes) organ called a penis. The other variety comes equipped with a potential space, in which to put the long (sometimes) organ. People who like to do this are called heterosexual or "straight". There are other individuals who like to relate sexually with individuals with the same body type as theirs. These people are known as homosexuals or "gay". Except for body configuration, and the substitution of certain orifices, the issues and activities are exactly the same, except the creation of new individuals and the issues that brings up do not apply."- Ron Smothermon.

Ok, not quite, but Poet this is not an answer to my questions.
not even one.

But here's another question for you.
Is it wrong to fire or layoff someone from their TV/Movie job for talking about or displaying homosexual relationships in public?
If so, How can it be justified to fire or layoff someone from their Job for just having a different opinion about the issue, and expressing it in public?

Isn't there a GROSS hypocrisy here.
You cannot be fired for homosexual acts, but you can be fired for THINKING homosexual acts are sin.

[KarlMarx]

People tend to fear what they don't understand.

http://christiangays.com/marriage/gay_marriage.shtml

And that's basically "it".

EXACTLY... which is why gays are afraid of Christianity...


http://christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/a/basicdoctrines.htm


and that's basically it

[poet]

EXACTLY... which is why gays are afraid of Christianity...


http://christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/a/basicdoctrines.htm


and that's basically it

Uh, I'm a Christian. Episcopalian.

[revelarts]

Phil deserves an award for speaking what so many others are thinking!!
He shouldn't need a award but the world gotten so crazy perverted that to speack the truth is an act of courage.



I didn't say he said anything vile but the comparison with bestiality is off base.
Off who's base?
Poet quote's some guy talking about holes and sometimes long organs and there being no real difference except preference, and names. so what's the problem with the comparison in that context? your not enlightened obviously FJ.

But you didn't answer any of my questions here either FJ.
Others ARE saying it's offensive and you say worthy of consequences. WHAT'S the OFFENSE? if not in your Opinon.
Others? what Justifies the "consequences" ?
If you can't answer that then you should be condemning the producers not giving them cover.

[poet]

Ok, not quite, but Poet this is not an answer to my questions.
not even one.

But here's another question for you.
Is it wrong to fire or layoff someone from their TV/Movie job for talking about or displaying homosexual relationships in public?
If so, How can it be justified to fire or layoff someone from their Job for just having a different opinion about the issue, and expressing it in public?

Isn't there a GROSS hypocrisy here.
You cannot be fired for homosexual acts, but you can be fired for THINKING homosexual acts are sin.

If you're a public figure, or a tv star....you might want to keep your personal feelings to yourself, lest you cast a shadow on your image, or on your employer, who doesn't share your views. Want to be political or candid....get out of the limelight, and knock yourself out.

And who is doing homosexual acts, "publicly"? The Duck Dynasty Star's comments became a news story. Duh.

[poet]

He shouldn't need a award but the world gotten so crazy perverted that to speack the truth is an act of courage.



Off who's base?
Poet quote some guy talking about holes and staff and there being no difference except prefernece. and names. sowhat's the problem with the comparison.

But you didn't answer any of my questions here either FJ.
Others ARE saying it's offensive and you say worthy of consequences. WHAT'S the OFFENSE? if not in your Opinon.
Others? what Justifies the "consequences" ?
If you can't answer that then you should be condemning the producers not giving them cover.

A remedial English course, could help you with your spelling.

[jimnyc]

A remedial English course, could help you with your spelling.

From racism onto picking on spelling already? I'm confident a years worth of sessions with a shrink might help you with your queer problem, just sayin!

[poet]

From racism onto picking on spelling already? I'm confident a years worth of sessions with a shrink might help you with your queer problem, just sayin!

You're a dog....what do you know?
And what problem? Queer? Bigot. Sit down.

[revelarts]

If you're a public figure, or a tv star....you might want to keep your personal feelings to yourself, lest you cast a shadow on your image, or on your employer, who doesn't share your views. Want to be political or candid....get out of the limelight, and knock yourself out.

And who is doing homosexual acts, "publicly"? The Duck Dynasty Star's comments became a news story. Duh.

Again your dodging.
I didn't say DOING public acts, I said displaying homosexual relationships.
Like Ellen, or any of a 8 dozen "gay" TV personalities.
they are in public displaying the relationships and specking out IN FAVOR of all aspects of the agenda AND keeping their jobs.

But you want those with different opinions to "stay in the closet" with their thoughts on a political and religious issue or GET FIRED?

Does that make any sense morally or legally?

[jimnyc]

You're a dog....what do you know?
And what problem? Queer? Bigot. Sit down.

When it comes to queers, I suppose I am a bigot. No more than you are against bad spellers.

[poet]

Again your dodging.
I didn't say DOING public acts, I said displaying homosexual relationships.
Like Ellen, or any of a 8 dozen "gay" TV personalities.
they are in public displaying the relationships and specking out IN FAVOR of all aspects of the agenda AND keeping their jobs.

But you want those with different opinions to "stay in the closet" with their thoughts on a political and religious issue or GET FIRED?

Does that make any sense morally or legally?

Are you serious? It's a known fact she is gay and in a relationship. Not something she beats her audience over the head with. You just lied.
I'm sorry, I can't.

[poet]

When it comes to queers, I suppose I am a bigot. No more than you are against bad spellers.

Apples and oranges, sweetheart. I feel sorry for you.

[revelarts]

A remedial English course, could help you with your spelling.

I pretty sure i was born to spell this way. are you hating?
are you a poor-spell-a-phobe? or a bigot?
hmm?

c'mon, i'm asking serious questions, attacking my spelling is no answer.

[poet]

I pretty sure i was born to spell this way. are you hating?
are you a poor-spell-a-phobe? or a bigot?
hmm?

c'mon, i'm asking serious questions, attacking my spelling is no answer.

I'm sorry, it's just that my intellectual standards are a little high. And I'm not going to answer asinine questions.

[jimnyc]

I'm sorry, it's just that my intellectual standards are a little high. And I'm not going to answer asinine questions.

Then don't reply to such people and complain about spelling. If you're going to enter threads to be a disruption, and refuse to debate or discuss things, then don't enter those threads.

[revelarts]

Are you serious? It's a known fact she is gay and in a relationship. Not something she beats her audience over the head with. You just lied.
I'm sorry, I can't.

Yes it's known fact that's my point. and when she or other 'gay' celebrities are asked about it they are very vocal.
the Duck Dynasty guy was asked in an interview, OFF the set of the show.

you are Dodging the questions poets
Is it right to Fire a homosexual for talking up "gay rights" and the "gay normalcy" when asked, and display relationships on their own time in public?

But others who disagree have to stay closeted about their opinion OR ELSE?

simple questions Poet.

[Thunderknuckles]

There was nothing hateful or vile in what he said. But this is how the left wins the public debate with the use of extreme language.
Have a negative opinion on gays? You're a vile, hate filled homophobe.
Have a negative opinion about Obama? You're a vile, hate filled racist.
Have a negative opinion about big government? You're a vile, hate filled terrorist.

The 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments are unders siege today. This is the fundamental change that Obama had in mind. If you don't go along with it, the 3rd Amendment will be blatantly violated to make sure you get with the program.

[poet]

Then don't reply to such people and complain about spelling. If you're going to enter threads to be a disruption, and refuse to debate or discuss things, then don't enter those threads.

Excuse me.....but how many threads have you turned into ad hominem attacks on me? Hypocrite. You aren't debating, or discussing. You're being God, in your little fiefdom. I'm not going to play this game. Have a nice life....such as it is.

[jimnyc]

Excuse me.....but how many threads have you turned into ad hominem attacks on me? Hypocrite. You aren't debating, or discussing. You're being God, in your little fiefdom. I'm not going to play this game. Have a nice life....such as it is.

Sorry, since your very first post I have only replied in kind to you. I tried a couple of times to engage you, but you have no interest in mature debate, you are here to race bait and toss flames at others, and you proved this from your first few posts. You're NOT going to jump in and completely disrupt the board. Act like an adult, or have a nice life yourself, Either way, I don't give a damn.

[KarlMarx]

Uh, I'm a Christian. Episcopalian.

so, what's the problem? Gay marriage is contrary to the Bible. See Genesis 2:24 regarding this.

[glockmail]

The only thing Phil said wrong was comparing a vagina to a butt hole. Women are a bit more than their genitalia. Everything else he said is dead on.

[Nukeman]

People tend to fear what they don't understand.



And that's basically "it".Umm NO.. Just because I or you or anyone for that matter don't agree with something has Jack and Squat to do with "fear"!! That my friend is a bogus argument that is disingenuous and pathetic.

People think that if they say someone is "fearful" that gives them sway over them and they must be ignorant or stupid. The fact is that "people disagree" plain and simple.. If you can't see that or separate that out you are either purposefully being obtuse or are ignorant/fearful yourself. So which is it??

[aboutime]

Jim. That member in question reminds me of someone else I knew on another board as well.

And, like the member in question. He was a stark, raving, devout, indisputable Racist who enjoyed using that accusation against anyone who WASN'T HIM, or whoever disagreed with him, or Obama in any way.

Unfortunately. It seems Obama has loosened a large segment of our Uneducated population who must constantly remain VICTIMS of us terrible White People, because WE have never walked in their shoes. And therefore...we are forever forbidden from attempting to discuss anything related to Race, Racism, or Racists...lest we be labeled as such ourselves.

It's the old, standard, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton tactic of EXTORTING money, feelings, property, and even thought from anyone who DARES to expose the FRAUD Jesse, or Al in any way.

[Thunderknuckles]

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate" -- Rick Warren

That's the very basis of tolerance folks. Unfortunately tolerance is often mistaken for sympathy and support by those asking for tolerance.

[fj1200]

Since you did not deny this I think it goes a long way towards answering your question. Which is why I included it in my answer to you in the first place. --Tyr

I didn't deny it, I didn't not deny it, it wasn't relevant to my question. And I'm not sure what special status that you are referring to.

[tailfins]

Sorry, since your very first post I have only replied in kind to you. I tried a couple of times to engage you, but you have no interest in mature debate, you are here to race bait and toss flames at others, and you proved this from your first few posts. You're NOT going to jump in and completely disrupt the board. Act like an adult, or have a nice life yourself, Either way, I don't give a damn.

As you move forward, don't forget about entertainment value. There's also all kinds of cool things you can do, like delete every third word of someone's post! :lol:

[Trigg]

I'll be sad to see this show end, which I assume will happen.

Instead of the usual drivel that hollyweird has been putting out, here was a family show. No cussing, no promiscuous sex, no one gets beat up. Just a family who looks like they enjoy being with one another.

Phil said what he believes, good for him.

[KarlMarx]

I'll be sad to see this show end, which I assume will happen.

Instead of the usual drivel that hollyweird has been putting out, here was a family show. No cussing, no promiscuous sex, no one gets beat up. Just a family who looks like they enjoy being with one another.

Phil said what he believes, good for him.
It will probably be picked up by another cable channel and makes scads of money for them.. meanwhile, A&E will be kicking itself for kowtowing to a bunch of Neo-Nazis

[fj1200]

Off who's base?
Poet quote's some guy talking about holes and sometimes long organs and there being no real difference except preference, and names. so what's the problem with the comparison in that context? your not enlightened obviously FJ.

But you didn't answer any of my questions here either FJ.
Others ARE saying it's offensive and you say worthy of consequences. WHAT'S the OFFENSE? if not in your Opinon.
Others? what Justifies the "consequences" ?
If you can't answer that then you should be condemning the producers not giving them cover.

That should be off base for anyone. Disagree? Fine, compare to bestiality? No. And poet can, or can't depending on your POV, make his own arguments.

The offense? Violating the mores of his producer apparently and possibly his contract but I don't any specifics about that.

[jimnyc]

The only thing Phil said wrong was comparing a vagina to a butt hole. Women are a bit more than their genitalia. Everything else he said is dead on.

I think this post states it best, even if bluntly. And the bitching in the media and from glaad wasn't about his comparison, but rather because he stated that homosexuality was a sin. He is supposed to be more accepting and tolerant of others, but there is no need for others to be tolerant of the views and/or beliefs of another. We should be tolerant of gays, but their intolerance is what got this man suspended.

That's ok, I read an article where I see he's getting an awful lot of support, outside of the celebrity whores out for attention. Even the media experts who chimed in stated he wouldn't lose his job, as the show is too big, too many fans and people supporting him, and the show will probably have better ratings as a result. Way to go to bring the attention, glaad idiots! Those in charge at A&E need to know what it is they're broadcasting. I'm betting that 75%+ of the viewers to Duck Dynasty are going to be God fearing Christians. Maybe not that high, but I'm betting it's up there.


Fans have turned to the social media to oppose the suspension, there are at least seven variations of “Bring Back Phil Robertson” pages on Facebook. The most popular among them had 300,000 likes as of early Thursday morning.

The leading “Bring Back Phil Robertson” Facebook page features a link to a Change.org petition calling on A&E networks to “end the wrongful suspension of Phil Robertson”; the petition had over 32,000 supporters early this morning.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/eric-scheiner/fans-go-online-bring-back-phil-robertson

[Abbey Marie]

If you're a public figure, or a tv star....you might want to keep your personal feelings to yourself, lest you cast a shadow on your image, or on your employer, who doesn't share your views. Want to be political or candid....get out of the limelight, and knock yourself out.

And who is doing homosexual acts, "publicly"? The Duck Dynasty Star's comments became a news story. Duh.


Oh, you mean like Martin Bashir?

[jimnyc]

Oh, you mean like Martin Bashir?

Now you know that's different, as saying that you want to defecate on a woman is acceptable behavior to some of the far left knuckleheads. Amazing though, that Robertson is making SO much news in such short time, seeing potential boycotts and such - and Bashir talks about something so disgustingly vile, and I don't see them doing the same. Lesson learned - talking about crapping on women is ok - but answering a question about sinfulness and/or your religious views, that's close to bringing on the end of the world!

[Abbey Marie]

Now you know that's different, as saying that you want to defecate on a woman is acceptable behavior to some of the far left knuckleheads. Amazing though, that Robertson is making SO much news in such short time, seeing potential boycotts and such - and Bashir talks about something so disgustingly vile, and I don't see them doing the same. Lesson learned - talking about crapping on women is ok - but answering a question about sinfulness and/or your religious views, that's close to bringing on the end of the world!


Yup, totally different. Btw, I'm sure you were being considerate, but in case anyone here doesn't know, he specifically said someone should defecate in her mouth.

As for people saying celebs need to watch their comments, don't think for a minute that a private citizen wouldn't have consequences at work for saying similar things. We are so restricted from speaking our minds these days; are the thought police far behind?

[jimnyc]

Yup, totally different. Btw, I'm sure you were being considerate, but in case anyone here doesn't know, he specifically said someone should defecate in her mouth.

As for people saying celebs need to watch their comments, don't think for a minute that a private citizen wouldn't have consequences at work for saying similar things. We are so restricted from speaking our minds these days; are the thought police far behind?

Yeah, I didn't want to insult the gals with too much description, that's how bad I thought his comments were - and the many, many celebrities that spoke out about Robertson - not a damn word towards Bashir.

[jimnyc]

For example, the scumbag known as Piers Morgan - he accused Sarah Palin of getting Bashir fired, stating "free speech is an endangered species. He thinks that the vile comments are or should have been protected by the first amendment. He went as far as to go to his Twitter account to point out Palin.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/12/19/piers-morgan-accuses-sarah-palin-getting-martin-bashir-fired

But how does he handle the comments by Robertson? Like a hypocrite!!


"Phil Robertson is not a 'victim of political correctness'. He's a victim of his own repulsively racist, homophobic bigotry," he tweeted.

"Just as the 2nd Amendment shouldn't protect assault rifle devotees, so the 1st Amendment shouldn't protect vile bigots," he said in another tweet issued a few minutes later.

And more - http://www.examiner.com/article/cnn-s-piers-morgan-first-amendment-doesn-t-apply-to-racist-phil-robertson

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If you're a public figure, or a tv star....you might want to keep your personal feelings to yourself, lest you cast a shadow on your image, or on your employer, who doesn't share your views. Want to be political or candid....get out of the limelight, and knock yourself out.

And who is doing homosexual acts, "publicly"? The Duck Dynasty Star's comments became a news story. Duh. BULLSHAT. Gay stars, politicians etc flaunt their feelings openly and are praised for it. Yet a Christian man speaks of his religious views and personal feelings he gets punished all in the name of protecting a sexual perversion. If you are truly too stupid to see the injustice and hypocrisy then you are nowhere near as bright as you pretend to be IMHO.-Tyr

[revelarts]

That should be off base for anyone. Disagree? Fine, compare to bestiality? No. And poet can, or can't depending on your POV, make his own arguments.
The offense? Violating the mores of his producer apparently and possibly his contract but I don't any specifics about that.
"Violating the mores of his producer" you can be fired for that? that's a law suit if i ever heard one.

but FJ i didn't know you were a Beastaphobe
i'm shocked....your a bigot. bad speller and a republican.

the enlightenment guy says a hole is a hole.
on an animal, plant, person or inanimate object correct?
like plumbing.

FJ Your mores are offensive to those advocates of legalizing beastailty the world over.
where do you work? you got consequences coming your way pal.

[aboutime]

BULLSHAT. Gay stars, politicians etc flaunt their feelings openly and are praised for it. Yet a Christian man speaks of his religious views and personal feelings he gets punished all in the name of protecting a sexual perversion. If you are truly too stupid to see the injustice and hypocrisy then you are nowhere near as bright as you pretend to be IMHO.-Tyr


Tyr. Makes one wonder when a large percentage of HOLLYWEIRD celebs with big mouths will get that hint, and shut up???

[jimnyc]

Look at the below screenshot. These are all stories that are making headlines, all into one area. All these twits did was give them more attention than they could have ever asked for. But more importantly, I think some of the stories and some of what others say, needs to be heard, and likely will.

#1 rated show
A&E trying to cut out Jesus
Politicians defending
Boycott A&E now rising, karma is a bitch



http://i39.tinypic.com/2r6itmr.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Love this by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal:


“Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV," Jindal said in a statement. "In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended."


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bobby-jindal-slams-suspension-duck-150107468.html;_ylt=A0oG7hQFlbNSTlgAqU9XNyoA;_ylu= X3oDMTEzZWhtZ3Z1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dG lkA1ZJUDI5M18x

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yup, totally different. Btw, I'm sure you were being considerate, but in case anyone here doesn't know, he specifically said someone should defecate in her mouth.

As for people saying celebs need to watch their comments, don't think for a minute that a private citizen wouldn't have consequences at work for saying similar things. We are so restricted from speaking our minds these days; are the thought police far behind? Obama already pushing thought police forward. I expect to hear the announcement of a thought czar any time now from the boy blunder. Executive Order up one thought police czar to advance the gay perversion agenda. AND WHY NOT, HE IS DICTATOR AFTER ALL.... -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Here's what a gay writer wrote about this brouhaha: (snippets)


One of the conservative tweeters I follow—one of those Christians convinced that Obama is going to have him killed for his faith—lives for stuff like this. He quickly took to the Twitterverse and posted a side-by-side image of Pope Francis and Phil, with the following caption: “Both preach truth on homosexual sin. One is TIME’s Person of the Year. The other JUST GOT FIRED.”

The point is worth considering. Even though Phil used crass, juvenile language to articulate his point, what he was getting at was his belief that homosexual “desire” is unnatural, and inherently disordered. This opinion isn’t unique to Phil. It’s actually shared by a majority of his fans.

It’s also shared, to some extent, by the Pope. Yes, that Pope—the one on the cover not just of TIME but also of The Advocate.

Of course, The Advocate knows the Pope’s thoughts on LGBT issues, including marriage equality. But as they note, Francis’ “stark change in rhetoric from his two predecessors” has set a positive example for how religious people ought to treat LGBT persons—an example that Phil, an elder at the White’s Ferry Road Church of Christ, ought to have followed in his GQ interview.

The second difference has to do with tone. In fairness to Phil, the tone of his off-the-cuff statements may not accurately represent his philosophy on this issue, but I do think it’s a fair representation of what many see as his southern charm. There’s a way to disagree with majority opinion without coming across as disagreeable. The Pope knows how to do this. Phil does not. As a result, we respect Papa, and shame Phil.

For the record, I’m undecided on whether or not I think Phil actually is homophobic, although I certainly think his statement was offensive, and not only to the LGBT community. But I also think that if I were to spend a day calling ducks with Phil, I’d probably end up liking him—even in spite of his position on gay men. It’s quite possible to throw one’s political support behind traditional, heterosexual marriage, and yet not be bigoted.

I’m reminded of something Bill Maher said during the height of the Paula Deen controversy: “Do we always have to make people go away?” I think the question applies in this situation, too.

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them? One of the biggest pop culture icons of today just took center stage to “educate” us about sexuality. I see this as an opportunity to further the discussion, to challenge his limited understanding of human desire, to engage with him and his rather sizeable audience—most of whom, by the way, probably share his views—and to rise above the endless sea of tweet-hate to help move our LGBT conversations to where they need to go.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/

[poet]

Umm NO.. Just because I or you or anyone for that matter don't agree with something has Jack and Squat to do with "fear"!! That my friend is a bogus argument that is disingenuous and pathetic.

People think that if they say someone is "fearful" that gives them sway over them and they must be ignorant or stupid. The fact is that "people disagree" plain and simple.. If you can't see that or separate that out you are either purposefully being obtuse or are ignorant/fearful yourself. So which is it??

Umm, yes. You, and others like you are fearful....petrified, that you no longer hold any sway, power, or influence over the course of event, mindsets, or how people perceive you. You are the "emperors", without any clothes on....and it's not pretty, or "big". You can disagree until cows come home, but the truth remains....some white people ain't s***. Many others are... it's just not you. You can't tell the truth. You refuse common decency, and you think you run things. Delusion. Whatever you are claiming you see in me (racism, intolerance, bigotry, mendacity, stupidity, arrogance) is your "projecting" those things that you possess. But, because you would never admit to your own frailties and shortcomings, you distract, and point fingers at easy targets.....me, an arrogant, uppity Negro, who happens to outshine you with 2 years of college behind me, coming from an illustrious and talented family, whose members are award-winners, known around the world. Hate, why don't you? I perfectly understand. Pretending to be more than you are, and using white privilege to do so, because you can't compete on a level playing field...because without favoritism, cronyism, and nepotism, you'd be at the bottom rung of the corporate, intellectual, and economic ladder. I didn't have to steal to get where I am. I made it on the merits.
But the knowledge of that, upsets your "applecarts"......just like Barack Obama, cannot be stomached, because he represents the antithesis to the lie you promote...that white people are "everything", and the end all and the be all. Ironically, I'm convinced that the majority of my liberal white friends on Facebook, would agree with me in totality...and they wouldn't be "race traitors", but decent human beings, knowing the truth. But carry on, in your little white forum, espousing your little white views, which seeks to demonize anyone that doesn't look like you. See how well, that works out for you.
Here....here is a little something extra, from a black intellectual who writes for "The Atlantic":
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064/


I surmise few can read on this level....those that can, I challenge you to read it in its' entirety, and then give an informed response. Most will, cowardly, dismiss it as "liberal tripe"...but will have no logical or intelligent defense. Such is the way with dinosaurs and Neanderthals...they go "extinct". LOL

[fj1200]

"Violating the mores of his producer" you can be fired for that? that's a law suit if i ever heard one.

but FJ i didn't know you were a Beastaphobe
i'm shocked....your a bigot. bad speller and a republican.

the enlightenment guy says a hole is a hole.
on an animal, plant, person or inanimate object correct?
like plumbing.

FJ Your mores are offensive to those advocates of legalizing beastailty the world over.
where do you work? you got consequences coming your way pal.

I really don't know what to make of that last bit but yes, you can apparently be suspended for that. Nevertheless may he sue and win if he was wronged.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Umm, yes. You, and others like you are fearful....petrified, that you no longer hold any sway, power, or influence over the course of event, mindsets, or how people perceive you. You are the "emperors", without any clothes on....and it's not pretty, or "big". You can disagree until cows come home, but the truth remains....some white people ain't s***. Many others are... it's just not you. You can't tell the truth. You refuse common decency, and you think you run things. Delusion. Whatever you are claiming you see in me (racism, intolerance, bigotry, mendacity, stupidity, arrogance) is your "projecting" those things that you possess. But, because you would never admit to your own frailties and shortcomings, you distract, and point fingers at easy targets.....me, an arrogant, uppity Negro, who happens to outshine you with 2 years of college behind me, coming from an illustrious and talented family, whose members are award-winners, known around the world. Hate, why don't you? I perfectly understand. Pretending to be more than you are, and using white privilege to do so, because you can't compete on a level playing field...because without favoritism, cronyism, and nepotism, you'd be at the bottom rung of the corporate, intellectual, and economic ladder. I didn't have to steal to get where I am. I made it on the merits.
But the knowledge of that, upsets your "applecarts"......just like Barack Obama, cannot be stomached, because he represents the antithesis to the lie you promote...that white people are "everything", and the end all and the be all. Ironically, I'm convinced that the majority of my liberal white friends on Facebook, would agree with me in totality...and they wouldn't be "race traitors", but decent human beings, knowing the truth. But carry on, in your little white forum, espousing your little white views, which seeks to demonize anyone that doesn't look like you. See how well, that works out for you.
Here....here is a little something extra, from a black intellectual who writes for "The Atlantic":
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064/


I surmise few can read on this level....those that can, I challenge you to read it in its' entirety, and then give an informed response. Most will, cowardly, dismiss it as "liberal tripe"...but will have no logical or intelligent defense. Such is the way with dinosaurs and Neanderthals...they go "extinct". LOL Yes so very few can read at that level. :laugh::laugh::laugh:. Are you always this ffing arrogant or do you continually work at it. I'd bet a thousand bucks my IQ is far higher than yours. I'd further bet another thousand bucks I've READ FAR , FAR MORE BOOKS THAN YOU EVER HAVE. Your words betray both your hate and your bias. And do so as you project that onto others here that toss the truth at you. Hell dude , I find it entertaining simply because your posts reek of dc talking points. liberal and gay biases mixed in with the typical black man hate and blame whitey trash one can see so often these days. I even pity you. Must suck big time to be as delusional and arrogant as you obviously are. -Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

Yes so very few can read at that level. :laugh::laugh::laugh:. Are you always this ffing arrogant or do you continually work at it. I'd bet a thousand bucks my IQ is far higher than yours. I'd further bet another thousand bucks I've READ FAR , FAR MORE BOOKS THAN YOU EVER HAVE. Your words betray both your hate and your bias. And do so as you project that onto others here that toss the truth at you. Hell dude , I find it entertaining simply because your posts reek of dc talking points. liberal and gay biases mixed in with the typical black man hate and blame whitey trash one can see so often these days. I even pity you. Must suck big time to be as delusional and arrogant as you obviously are. -Tyr

Well, gollllly, Tyr, you kin read all that der stuff? You muss be pretty durn smart!

.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, gollllly, Tyr, you kin read all that der stuff? You muss be pretty durn smart!

. Yez ma'am I kin jest az well reed 'tween tha lines two. :laugh: My 'ole pappy sez I wus so smart an dats why he calls me sun. -:laugh:-Tyr

[Nukeman]

Umm, yes. You, and others like you are fearful....petrified, that you no longer hold any sway, power, or influence over the course of event, mindsets, or how people perceive you. You are the "emperors", without any clothes on....and it's not pretty, or "big". You can disagree until cows come home, but the truth remains....some white people ain't s***. Many others are... it's just not you. You can't tell the truth. You refuse common decency, and you think you run things. Delusion.Um.. NO again I do not FEAR you at all and I am in no way intimidated by you. I am not a "power hungry" person who needs to have "sway" over another. I truly am a "live-and-let-live" person. You do what you want and I will do the same..

You say "you refuse common decency" and tell me in the preceding line that "white people aint shit" How decent of you!!! The only thing I run is a multi-million dollar imaging department, but I don't run my people's lives!!!!



Whatever you are claiming you see in me (racism, intolerance, bigotry, mendacity, stupidity, arrogance) is your "projecting" those things that you possess. But, because you would never admit to your own frailties and shortcomings, you distract, and point fingers at easy targets.....me, an arrogant, uppity Negro, who happens to outshine you with 2 years of college behind me,
Actually YOU are the one "projecting" are we feeling inadequate?? I do not care about your color, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation. I really don't care.. Not my concern and I NEVER push my beliefs on anyone....

I am SOOOO glad you 2 years of college make you "out shine" me. I challenge you to show me where I "distract and point fingers". That my friend seems to be your SOP.




comming from an illustrious and talented family, whose members are award-winners, known around the world. Hate, why don't you? I perfectly understand. Pretending to be more than you are, and using white privilege to do so, because you can't compete on a level playing field...because without favoritism, cronyism, and nepotism, you'd be at the bottom rung of the corporate, intellectual, and economic ladder. I didn't have to steal to get where I am. I made it on the merits.

Well coming from a coal miners family and being the FIRST to go through college I am so glad you had it easy with "illustrious and talented family member" to help you along the way. I on the other hand pulled up my boots worked full time and put my self through college to better my standing.. ON MY OWN, with no "help" or gov't handouts.. I was expected to go on to be a manual labor person with a standard future like the rest of my family. We are hard working "hillbillies" that don't judge and accept all for who they are.. If you can't handle that then you are the one with issues!!


But the knowledge of that, upsets your "applecarts"......just like Barack Obama, cannot be stomached, because he represents the antithesis to the lie you promote...that white people are "everything", and the end all and the be all. Ironically, I'm convinced that the majority of my liberal white friends on Facebook, would agree with me in totality...and they wouldn't be "race traitors", but decent human beings, knowing the truth. But carry on, in your little white forum, espousing your little white views, which seeks to demonize anyone that doesn't look like you. See how well, that works out for you.

Not at all BO represents to me a man that is way out of his league. He was NOT prepared to be president and has shown that in his dealings with not only his own country but other nations. The man has made a laughing stock out of the US in 5 short years.. More so than Bush. The man surrounds himself with sycophants and yes men.. Most of his "inner circle" have NEVER actually worked in the real world yet they want to tell us how to work... Obama does a fine job by his actions NOT HIS SKIN COLOR. Posters like you are the ones that CONSTANTLY pull the race card.

How do you know my skin color by the way? Do you know me on a personal level or are you making "assumptions" Are you lumping me in with others based on those assumptions? Are you placing particular attributes towards me based on YOUR assumptions? IF you answer yes to any of these questions you are nothing but a pathetic race baiter no better than a Klan member!!!!!!


Here....here is a little something extra, from a black intellectual who writes for "The Atlantic":
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064/


I surmise few can read on this level....those that can, I challenge you to read it in its' entirety, and then give an informed response. Most will, cowardly, dismiss it as "liberal tripe"...but will have no logical or intelligent defense. Such is the way with dinosaurs and Neanderthals...they go "extinct". LOL
If I find time later I may read your "little article" I find it funny you condemn on one hand those that dismiss with "liberal tripe" yet you dismiss the conservative view point as ignorant and racist. Why the double standards, is it due to your "enlightenment?

[tailfins]

Yes so very few can read at that level. :laugh::laugh::laugh:. Are you always this ffing arrogant or do you continually work at it. I'd bet a thousand bucks my IQ is far higher than yours. I'd further bet another thousand bucks I've READ FAR , FAR MORE BOOKS THAN YOU EVER HAVE. Your words betray both your hate and your bias. And do so as you project that onto others here that toss the truth at you. Hell dude , I find it entertaining simply because your posts reek of dc talking points. liberal and gay biases mixed in with the typical black man hate and blame whitey trash one can see so often these days. I even pity you. Must suck big time to be as delusional and arrogant as you obviously are. -Tyr


You don't HAVE a thousand bucks!

[jimnyc]

Um.. NO again I do not FEAR you at all and I am in no way intimidated by you.

That's like trolling 101 and Poet was as transparent as scotch tape. He only mentioned the fear crap and intimidation as a method of trying to illicit responses or to piss people off. Like people are running around "Oh no, the queers are coming, the queers are coming, get out of town!". There is no such thing. I've never met a single person who actually "feared" homosexual people.

Truth is - it's a made up word with the sole intention of vilifying the person they are trying to label.

[jimnyc]

I really don't know what to make of that last bit but yes, you can apparently be suspended for that. Nevertheless may he sue and win if he was wronged.

It's often seen in pro sports too, it's called a "morality clause". If they do something that the 'bosses' disagree with, then they reserve the right to suspend/fire that person and even get out of contracts. I think 'legally', like if Robertson to sue for example, he would lose, if there is such a clause.

[Jeff]

This is a good video and Sarah Palin is exactly right, they picked this one sin he spoke of ( that is in the bible and his belief so why wouldn't he answer this way when asked ) A & E shut Phil down to please the Liberal audience , yes they knew exactly what his response would be and ever since the whole contract thing went down ( when A & E wanted no prayer ) A & E knew they had real trouble.




"There isn't a network out there that would do things differently, with all their major corporate conglomerate ties, they'd all follow a similar course as A&E has," said the source. "It's likely the beginning of the end for 'Duck Dynasty.'"



http://teapartyorg.ning.com/video/video/show?id=4301673%3AVideo%3A2231134&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_video

[jimnyc]

The words/thoughts of Piers Morgan keep coming back to me, and in another world, I wish I could punch that prick square in his face. Not a word towards Martin Bashir, only mention of dwindling freedom of speech because he had blowback from his vile comments. But then downright attacks Robertson over his comments, and I mean attacks. This shows the thought process of a liberal, and man that's sad.

If ANYONE were to make comments about defecating in the mouth of a woman... would you support them in ANY way, even simply to say "well, it's freedom of speech". Being how vile it was, and that it was said to a woman - at best I look the other way and ignore it, but no fucking way do I even indirectly support it. Sure, I'm all for freedom of speech, and he DOES have the freedom to even be vile as he was. But that doesn't mean I support him. But if you're a liberal, you ignore the comments or downplay them, and try and focus on freedom of speech, and blame conservatives and tell people that because of them people aren't allow to speak up. :rolleyes:

Even if one thinks it was harsh in what Robertson said - how do you even compare that to what Bashir said? How does someone jump to FOS when it comes to talk of doing something vile to Palin, but scream bloody murder and demand boycotts when someone disses homosexuality?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You don't HAVE a thousand bucks! Wanna bet? :laugh:--Tyr

[jimnyc]

This should be interesting to see how A&E handles this going forward. Duck Dynasty is the highest rated cable TV show - ever. The entire family has now come out and easily stated that the show doesn't go on without Phil and would rather pull the entire plug if they don't let him back.

So now the ball is back in their court. Do they stick with the GLAAD complainers, or the viewers that are giving them this highest rated show, which equals massive advertising income for them.

IMO, they made a mistake on this one. A simple message that the opinions of so and so do not represent the opinions of A&E would have been sufficient. It's getting tiresome to see many wanting to shut others down, get them fired, boycotts and all this other crap, when they don't agree with what someone says. I can see if he pulled a Charlie Sheen and was saying smack about producers and such, but this was a man simply answering a question about his religious beliefs.

IMO, I believe it's ok to state on TV and cable that you are on side with homosexuality, that you see no issue with it, "NO H8", "Vote No", and every other angle of support possible. But say you think it's a sin?

[CSM]

This should be interesting to see how A&E handles this going forward. Duck Dynasty is the highest rated cable TV show - ever. The entire family has now come out and easily stated that the show doesn't go on without Phil and would rather pull the entire plug if they don't let him back.

So now the ball is back in their court. Do they stick with the GLAAD complainers, or the viewers that are giving them this highest rated show, which equals massive advertising income for them.

IMO, they made a mistake on this one. A simple message that the opinions of so and so do not represent the opinions of A&E would have been sufficient. It's getting tiresome to see many wanting to shut others down, get them fired, boycotts and all this other crap, when they don't agree with what someone says. I can see if he pulled a Charlie Sheen and was saying smack about producers and such, but this was a man simply answering a question about his religious beliefs.

IMO, I believe it's ok to state on TV and cable that you are on side with homosexuality, that you see no issue with it, "NO H8", "Vote No", and every other angle of support possible. But say you think it's a sin?

Clearly, A&E totally misunderstands their audience. It sure as heck isn't all the GLAAD folks who made the show so popular. It seems to me that if it was a majority of viewers that disliked the show (for whatever reason) the ratings would have depicted that and the show would have been pulled.

[jimnyc]

At least 2 major sponsors have come out publicly and stated they have no intention of halting advertising with Duck Dynasty or Duck Commander (their private business). At least the sponsors so far seem to have a little more common sense.

[Jeff]

This should be interesting to see how A&E handles this going forward. Duck Dynasty is the highest rated cable TV show - ever. The entire family has now come out and easily stated that the show doesn't go on without Phil and would rather pull the entire plug if they don't let him back.

So now the ball is back in their court. Do they stick with the GLAAD complainers, or the viewers that are giving them this highest rated show, which equals massive advertising income for them.

IMO, they made a mistake on this one. A simple message that the opinions of so and so do not represent the opinions of A&E would have been sufficient. It's getting tiresome to see many wanting to shut others down, get them fired, boycotts and all this other crap, when they don't agree with what someone says. I can see if he pulled a Charlie Sheen and was saying smack about producers and such, but this was a man simply answering a question about his religious beliefs.

IMO, I believe it's ok to state on TV and cable that you are on side with homosexuality, that you see no issue with it, "NO H8", "Vote No", and every other angle of support possible. But say you think it's a sin?


A&E is hoping this will blow over quickly I am sure , they realized back when they where arguing over the contract what a mess they where in ( they wanted prayer dropped and the family said no prayer no show and the public stood behind them ) they have to deal with a #1 hit show and a bunch of Libs that don't like it. All ya have to do is look around and see how one Lib complaining about Christmas lights ( and the owner of the lights being told to take them down or in many cases a new law outlawing Christmas lights being born ) and you will see why A&E did this and what will wind up coming of this story .

[jimnyc]

NOW let's see if homosexuals are treated the same as a Christian speaking his mind. This decision was made by A&E, and now another actor from a show on A&E speaks up. This is from another show called "Storage Wars", in which there is an openly gay couple.


An openly gay couple on A&E's "Storage Wars: New York" is NOT offended by the homophobic comments made by fellow A&E'er and "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson -- telling TMZ, they just feel bad for him ... because man ass beats vagina any day of the week.

Chris Morelli and Tad Eaton tell us, "We could give a s**t what he thinks ... [man ass] is tighter."

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/page/4/#ixzz2o1jd3Ls7


I personally find these comments even more revolting. But I'll be fair and just say they are on par with what Robertson stated. Only difference? This was in support of homosexuals and stated by an openly gay person.

Will we see the same backlash from the media? From A&E? From the gay community? Boycotts?

[Gaffer]

A&E and it's sister station Bravo are faggot run networks. This stuff should be expected from them. The ducks need to move to another network. Their viewers will follow and A&E will lose money. Glenn Beck has already offered them a slot on his network.

[revelarts]

There are OUTRIGHT pedophiles that work in Hollywood.
Woody Allen one of the most well known, oscar-winning filmmaker Roman Polanski another
A Director/writer named Victor Salva is a convicted sex offender who raped a 12 yr old boy.
He's still making movies, one with Disney no less.
http://www.proyouthpages.com/salva.html


...Martin Weiss, a 47-year-old Hollywood manager who represented child actors; Fernando Rivas, 59, an award-winning composer for “Sesame Street”; and registered sex offender Jason James Murphy, 35, a casting agent who frequently worked with young clients. In August, ‘80s child star Corey Feldman told ABC’s (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pedophiles-in-hollywood-surround-children-like-vultures-former-child-actor/) “Nightline” that pedophiles surrounded child actors in Hollywood “like vultures.”
“I can tell you that the number one problem in Hollywood was, and is, and always will be pedophilia,” said Feldman. “There was a circle of older men that surrounded themselves around this group of kids, and they all had either their own power or connections to great power in the entertainment industry.”...


one former child star says one reason why it' isn't stopped when it's known on sets is because EVERYONE IS MAKING MONEY, and reporting it would stop the checks coming in.

to claim that people suspended him because of principals and preverted "mores" is a joke.
Pure evil hypocrisy, that they'd suspend a man for quoting the Bible and making off the cuff comments.

It's BS, perverted helliwood mafia political BS.

[glockmail]

NOW let's see if homosexuals are treated the same as a Christian speaking his mind. This decision was made by A&E, and now another actor from a show on A&E speaks up. This is from another show called "Storage Wars", in which there is an openly gay couple.



I personally find these comments even more revolting. But I'll be fair and just say they are on par with what Robertson stated. Only difference? This was in support of homosexuals and stated by an openly gay person.

Will we see the same backlash from the media? From A&E? From the gay community? Boycotts?

Never saw the show. That does support my theory of queers though: tiny dicks. :laugh:

[aboutime]

Hypocrisy at A & E Rules supreme. No further need to discuss it.

The truth, being spoken by Duck Dynasty members, and rejected by A&E should tell Americans how A&E should probably be renamed the "G & L" network...just for starters.

Remove all doubt, then watch A&E slip into a "THAN FRANTHISCO" state of mind. Just ask



http://icansayit.com/images/barneyweiner.jpg

[jimnyc]

First off, this article talks about how GLAAD is receiving a lot of backlash. Tough shit on them. Then a spokesman for them states this:


“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said.

WTF? WHY in the world would he need to do this? He believes in his faith and is against homosexuality. Do they believe forcing him to sit down with a few gay couples might have him change his faith, so as not to offend them ever again? Why does he need to sit with them to learn - why can't they come sit with him and his family and learn the ways of a Christian life? Not only do these groups pull this shit whenever someone says something they disagree with, but then they expect the full apology tour.

I'm still waiting for the media and the hollywood elites to scramble and call for boycotts of Storage Wars. Haven't heard barely a peep on that one.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty-fallout-glaad-reeling-biggest-backlash-years-010050637.html

[aboutime]

First off, this article talks about how GLAAD is receiving a lot of backlash. Tough shit on them. Then a spokesman for them states this:



WTF? WHY in the world would he need to do this? He believes in his faith and is against homosexuality. Do they believe forcing him to sit down with a few gay couples might have him change his faith, so as not to offend them ever again? Why does he need to sit with them to learn - why can't they come sit with him and his family and learn the ways of a Christian life? Not only do these groups pull this shit whenever someone says something they disagree with, but then they expect the full apology tour.

I'm still waiting for the media and the hollywood elites to scramble and call for boycotts of Storage Wars. Haven't heard barely a peep on that one.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty-fallout-glaad-reeling-biggest-backlash-years-010050637.html



Why would that man LOWER himself to their level by doing what THEY demand.
Tough crap on them. How bout they reverse gears and find a way to SIT DOWN with him, in his familiar surroundings, with family, and explain how THEY DEMAND everyone must always do WHAT THEY WANT, THINK, SAY, and DO?

GLAAD is doing nothing more than trying to convince NON-GAY Americans how everyone MUST either meet their Demands, or those who disagree are RACISTS.

ALL OF US NEED TO SUPPORT PHIL. And..honestly. I have only seen short segments of the show. So. I have no dog in the fight...except for supporting His 1st amendment rights to SAY whatever he wants, when, and however he wants to say it.

PERIOD (quoting the Obamaboy)

[glockmail]

....
Tough crap on them. ... They need to excrement in each other's mouths.

:lol:

[SassyLady]

It will probably be picked up by another cable channel and makes scads of money for them.. meanwhile, A&E will be kicking itself for kowtowing to a bunch of Neo-Nazis

Glenn Beck offered them a spot on his network.

[Jeff]

This guy Piers Morgan is about the biggest ass on TV, as he tried to ruffle feathers the Gay guy has the right attitude FREEDOM OF SPEECH , Morgan says he should be fired but honestly the couple of times I have seen this Morgan on TV he seems more offensive than Phil ever dreamed of .




Duck Dynasty’s” Phil Robertson got an unlikely boost Wednesday when CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/27/world/asia/china-baby-rescue/) anchor Don Lemon — who is gay — told Piers Morgan he disagrees with Robertson’s “indefinite suspension” from the A&E television network over his anti-gay remarks. An outraged Morgan repeatedly slammed Robertson and his corporate affiliates in the strongest terms, clearly hoping Lemon would jump on the bandwagon.



http://conservativevideos.com/2013/12/gay-cnn-anchor-defends-duck-dynasty-star-dont-think-fired/

[Jeff]

I believe they will cancel the show now, heck they are pulling in so much money right now just from shirts and other apparel being sold to the public it isn't like they need the money, I personally believe at this point it is win win for all involved, A&E bows to the Liberals and gets rid of the show and the family who if marketed right can make all kinds of money this month ( especially being Christmas time ) and maybe next month .



On Friday, sources close to the Duck Dynasty Robertson family told E! Online (http://www.eonline.com/news/492909/duck-dynasty-family-is-very-serious-about-leaving-the-show?cmpid=tweol-manual) that the family was “very serious” about ending the show if Phil Robertson’s suspension stood. The source said, “They’re an extremely tight-knit family and they’re not going to let this get in the way. [Phil] is the reason for their success – they’re not going to abandon him. They’re also not about to let anyone threaten their religious beliefs.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/12/20/source-Duck-Dynasty-end

[Gaffer]

Last I heard the Robertson family was worth about 80 million. They have their business and various items they sell, so to walk away from the TV show won't affect their pocket book one iota. The only ones that get hurt in the deal is A&E.

[jimnyc]

I believe they will cancel the show now, heck they are pulling in so much money right now just from shirts and other apparel being sold to the public it isn't like they need the money, I personally believe at this point it is win win for all involved, A&E bows to the Liberals and gets rid of the show and the family who if marketed right can make all kinds of money this month ( especially being Christmas time ) and maybe next month .

If true, I hope their contracts allow for them to bring the show elsewhere. Wherever they land they will be more popular then ever.

I hope Piers Morgan gets dog shit in his stocking.

[KitchenKitten99]

Many are quickly pulling the 1st amendment rights thing as the defense. His 1st amendment right technically has not been violated.

His civil right regarding equal opportunity employment, HAS.

Specifically under Title VII:
http://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/title-vii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-equal-employment.html


... Provided further, That it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy. - .... [snip]

DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization--
(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.
(d) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.
(f) As used in this title, the phrase "unlawful employment practice" shall not be deemed to include any action or measure taken by an employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency with respect to an individual who is a member of the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire and employ any individual for any position, for an employer to discharge any individual from any position, or for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer any individual for employment in any position, or for a labor organization to fail or refuse to refer any individual for employment in any position, if--

If Phil so chose to hire an attorney and sue, I think he might have a good case. I actually would encourage him to do so and donate the money to his favorite charity.

[jimnyc]

If Phil so chose to hire an attorney and sue, I think he might have a good case. I actually would encourage him to do so and donate the money to his favorite charity.

I don't necessarily disagree, but they'll say that it had nothing to do with religion but rather that he brought a bad image to the show/channel. I can only assume whatever their contract states, it probably has various clauses about behavior and image. They will also argue that Title 7 is designed to protect employees on the job. Trust me, I know what you're saying, just playing devils advocate here!

[jimnyc]

You know what else bugs me? A&E has an issue with the comments and wants to separate themselves from the situation. But now they are running a week long marathon of the shows over Christmas week to profit from the show. Both A&E and the actors will profit from the show being aired. Season 4 has already been completed as well, so they haven't technically shut down anything. All they are trying to do is vilify Robertson - while profiting from him.

Also, the CEO has no come out and stated that her reasoning for the suspension was the gay workers at A&E. She said that the comments would have been out of line if directed at black folks or asians, so why should comments directed at homosexuality be different? Perhaps because one was a religious view based on another persons actions, and the others aren't even a part of the discussion?

The only fallback I have read thus far is that Cracker Barrel removed from the shelves anything that had Phil out and in the forefront, but the rest of the Duck Commander stuff is still there.

All this because a man explained what he thought was sinful when asked, as per his religious views. Not a peep still about the gay man from Storage Wars who made a disgusting comment about gays, and what he prefers to penetrate. Both the major media and A&E have been hypocrites, making a huge deal out of what Phil said, and not even an honorable mention to what a gay guy says.

Welcome to the USA, the land of the fr... Land of the place where you will never be offended, where you have the right to silence those you disagree with, where people are brave enough to talk down others and take away your livelihood because of your beliefs.

[KitchenKitten99]

I don't necessarily disagree, but they'll say that it had nothing to do with religion but rather that he brought a bad image to the show/channel. I can only assume whatever their contract states, it probably has various clauses about behavior and image. They will also argue that Title 7 is designed to protect employees on the job. Trust me, I know what you're saying, just playing devils advocate here!

They can SAY it has nothing to do with religion, but they'd be proven wrong because the comments he made were in DIRECT relation to being asked the question "What in your mind is sinful?"

Sinful in itself is directly related to religion, and almost all of them have behavior they consider to be 'sinful' or shameful, or disgraceful, etc. So that point would be moot.

It is NO secret that Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam condemn homosexuality and consider it a sin.

So if Phil was a Muslim, and said the same thing--what do you want to bet he'd get a pass?

What about black southern Baptists? If any of the leaders were interviewed...what would the outcry be?

A&E contracted them WITH their own iron-clad clause of no-compromise on their religion and open practice of faith on and off TV. How is an interview with GQ, that is a magazine not owned or affiliated in any way with A&E, somehow the breaking point?

While your argument is of devil's advocate... even I could disprove those statements myself with what I just stated, and I am not an attorney.

[aboutime]

A & E has only one thing in mind. The ALMIGHTY...OBAMABUCK.

All of the FREE Advertising A&E has had since the announcement of PHIL being suspended has probably increased Viewers for A&E...and DUCK DYNASTY.

And, with all of this Broohaha.....Duck Dynasty products have been SOLD OUT...almost everywhere.

So...the whole FIASCO was probably designed to do exactly what they wanted.

The ALMIGHTY DOLLAR...OR OBAMABUCKS have been pouring in and Duck Dynasty, with A&E are the WINNERS.

[DragonStryk72]

He has freedom of speech, he also has freedom of consequences.

Sorry, but I blame A&E on this one. You knowingly a group of guys who pride themselves on being backwoods hillbillies from Louisiana, and you didn't expect one of them to say something that wasn't PC? It's like hiring Chris Rock for an HBO special, then getting pissed cause he started saying cracker, nigger, and fuck a lot. I mean, at a certain point, the company has to understand that they are hiring people with their own personal beliefs. Suspending him for one off comment, and possibly cancelling the show, is just moronic.

For most companies, there would be a press conference with the person, or an interview where they better explain themselves, but they went straight to suspension.

[fj1200]

Sorry, but I blame A&E on this one.

I do not disagree. There is just no government actor here to make a FoS claim.

[glockmail]

Also, the CEO has no come out and stated that her reasoning for the suspension was the gay workers at A&E. She said that the comments would have been out of line if directed at black folks or asians, so why should comments directed at homosexuality be different? Perhaps because one was a religious view based on another persons actions, and the others aren't even a part of the discussion?

Being black or Asian isn't a sin. And you can't ignore the religious component of Phil's argument.

A&E CEO's argument = :lame2:

[DragonStryk72]

I think this post states it best, even if bluntly. And the bitching in the media and from glaad wasn't about his comparison, but rather because he stated that homosexuality was a sin. He is supposed to be more accepting and tolerant of others, but there is no need for others to be tolerant of the views and/or beliefs of another. We should be tolerant of gays, but their intolerance is what got this man suspended.

That's ok, I read an article where I see he's getting an awful lot of support, outside of the celebrity whores out for attention. Even the media experts who chimed in stated he wouldn't lose his job, as the show is too big, too many fans and people supporting him, and the show will probably have better ratings as a result. Way to go to bring the attention, glaad idiots! Those in charge at A&E need to know what it is they're broadcasting. I'm betting that 75%+ of the viewers to Duck Dynasty are going to be God fearing Christians. Maybe not that high, but I'm betting it's up there.



http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/eric-scheiner/fans-go-online-bring-back-phil-robertson

Actually, you're kind of wrong here, but not how you think. It's a bit hilarious, but a number of Robertson's most ardent supporters right now are gay folks, and people who support gay rights. I'm not kidding, if you look at a number of the articles, you'll see them in the comments section having his back.

For many of them, they've gotten to know Robertson through the show, and his appearances outside the show, and so, see that he has no animosity toward them. He's a Christian redneck from the backwoods of Louisiana, and for them, they understood there was a good chance he was going to eventually say something that wasn't exactly PC. They think the whole suspension is an overblown response, as A&E knew who they hired when they got him and his family for the show, and shouldn't be shocked by this.

As to the homophobe label, it's a crutch argument used by people who labor under the delusion that those who are against gay rights are such way because they are afraid. This is not the case, and never really has been, because it is a matter of moral/ethical belief. I say this as someone who has backed up gay marriage and gay rights repeatedly. My father is gay, but you know what? I can argue with everyone here from now to Judgment Day, and still respect them enough to not hurl childish insults at them. If childish insults are hurled at me, I can still act like the adult that I am, and continue to debate them on their points.

[jimnyc]

Actually, you're kind of wrong here, but not how you think. It's a bit hilarious, but a number of Robertson's most ardent supporters right now are gay folks, and people who support gay rights. I'm not kidding, if you look at a number of the articles, you'll see them in the comments section having his back.

For many of them, they've gotten to know Robertson through the show, and his appearances outside the show, and so, see that he has no animosity toward them. He's a Christian redneck from the backwoods of Louisiana, and for them, they understood there was a good chance he was going to eventually say something that wasn't exactly PC. They think the whole suspension is an overblown response, as A&E knew who they hired when they got him and his family for the show, and shouldn't be shocked by this.

As to the homophobe label, it's a crutch argument used by people who labor under the delusion that those who are against gay rights are such way because they are afraid. This is not the case, and never really has been, because it is a matter of moral/ethical belief. I say this as someone who has backed up gay marriage and gay rights repeatedly. My father is gay, but you know what? I can argue with everyone here from now to Judgment Day, and still respect them enough to not hurl childish insults at them. If childish insults are hurled at me, I can still act like the adult that I am, and continue to debate them on their points.

There have been a number of articles written by gay folks since the suspension, basically stating the same thing you just did. I wish they would get the airtime, as voices of reason. But it seems the loudest voices are heard and broadcast - those from the groups like GLAAD, and from the hollywood elite, who can make a simple "tweet" and it'll get national attention. And it's not even that one must agree, or even state that he has 'rights', but rather how one responds. Politely disagreeing, or even rudely disagreeing, I can see that. But it just seems that far too often the response is to try and silence others, have them fired, lose sponsors...

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, poet, realize you're already banned, but I read your post, and your article, and I just can't let stand. As a proponent of gay rights and equality, I just let you act like you represent my dad:


Umm, yes. You, and others like you are fearful....petrified, that you no longer hold any sway, power, or influence over the course of event, mindsets, or how people perceive you.

Nope. They believe, wrongfully in my opinion, that being gay is morally wrong, based upon their faith in the word of the Bible, but they are not afraid of gays, blacks, or otherwise. The whole "Homophobe" has been incorrectly thrown around, and while there are those who suffer from Homophobia, none of them are on this message board as far as I can tell.

You are the "emperors", without any clothes on....and it's not pretty, or "big". You can disagree until cows come home, but the truth remains....some white people ain't s***. Many others are... it's just not you.

This is sanctimonious, self-serving bullcrap.

You can't tell the truth. You refuse common decency, and you think you run things. Delusion.

More crap, but looking over the thread, also blatantly inaccurate. They've told you the truth, whether you care for it or not being completely irrelevant to the fact that they've told you the truth of how they feel. I would like to bring up a new label and that is hypocrite. You have slapped people on here repeatedly about their spelling and/or reading levels, but your grammar is completely horrible. Delusion is not a sentence in and of itself, and just seems like more posturing. Really, if you are to insult the intelligence of others, then you had best make certain that your grammar is in order, or you just look like an ass.

Whatever you are claiming you see in me (racism, intolerance, bigotry, mendacity, stupidity, arrogance) is your "projecting" those things that you possess.

Oh, I see pretty much all of that in you, but that's because it is what you are showing here. You've shown racism in your treatment of other races, you've shown intolerance in your inability to respect any viewpoint that does not match your own. Bigotry has been shown in the way that you castigate whole groups, sweeping them all under the same banner with no regard for who they are as people. Mendacity is the lie you try to sell us that you are an intellectual. Your stupidity is in going on the attack before anyone has done anything to fight, arrogantly throwing your weight around because you feel you're so much better than everyone here.

It is not projection when people see what you have shown, and treat you in a matter consistent with that presentation.

But, because you would never admit to your own frailties and shortcomings, you distract, and point fingers at easy targets.....me, an arrogant, uppity Negro, who happens to outshine you with 2 years of college behind me, coming from an illustrious and talented family, whose members are award-winners, known around the world. Hate, why don't you? I perfectly understand. Pretending to be more than you are, and using white privilege to do so, because you can't compete on a level playing field...because without favoritism, cronyism, and nepotism, you'd be at the bottom rung of the corporate, intellectual, and economic ladder. I didn't have to steal to get where I am. I made it on the merits.

Frankly, no one here gives a rat's ass that your black. You're the only one who keeps bringing it up. I have no college under my belt, and yet I can still argue you on a level superior to the one you occupy. You speak of hate, but no one here has thrown hate upon you. Oh, they've fought back at the punches you threw, but you started the fight, threw hate, and then accuse others of it when they fight back. Nor are they elitist enough to throw their families' accomplishments up as some sort of shield of superiority.

Always with the race card, even in the face of arguments that never even concern it. You've even now stated that white people are incapable of the same level of success that black people are, because apparently, it's all about cronyism and nepotism. You know, I don't come from a prestigious family, I'm the son of an accountant and a hospice worker. My dad was a former Marine, not particularly special at it, but he served in Vietnam. So really, I made it on my own too, and here's the thing: It doesn't matter to this argument, or anything on this entire forum. Your argument is entirely self-aggrandizement.

But the knowledge of that, upsets your "applecarts"......just like Barack Obama, cannot be stomached, because he represents the antithesis to the lie you promote...that white people are "everything", and the end all and the be all. Ironically, I'm convinced that the majority of my liberal white friends on Facebook, would agree with me in totality...and they wouldn't be "race traitors", but decent human beings, knowing the truth. But carry on, in your little white forum, espousing your little white views, which seeks to demonize anyone that doesn't look like you. See how well, that works out for you.

Actually, no one here gave a shit he was black. They were against him because of the D next to him name in political context. When Herman Cain was up for the Presidential nod, many here were willing to back him, and happy to do so because he was a conservative. No one here is a white supremacist, and never have been. This is your greatest section of prejudice, and racism here, that we must be less because we're white. Had Obama's politics not essentially been all the way out to the left, and instead been more conservative, we'd have voted for him. Really, it's got nothing to do with his race.

Here....here is a little something extra, from a black intellectual who writes for "The Atlantic":
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064/



I surmise few can read on this level....those that can, I challenge you to read it in its' entirety, and then give an informed response. Most will, cowardly, dismiss it as "liberal tripe"...but will have no logical or intelligent defense. Such is the way with dinosaurs and Neanderthals...they go "extinct". LOL

And one final prejudiced argument born of hate on the way out. Way to stay classy, there.

Okay, now to the article. Oh that's right, we're doing this shit:


As a candidate, Barack Obama said we needed to reckon with race and with America’s original sin, slavery. But as our first black president, he has avoided mention of race almost entirely. In having to be “twice as good” and “half as black,” Obama reveals the false promise and double standard of integration.

This is an assumption on the article writer's part. The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans no longer have a problem with the concept of a black president. The few whackjobs that did were relegated to obscurity by their own side of the political spectrum, and roundly ignored. Maybe back in the early days of his childhood and adult life, but certainly not in 2008.


The irony of President Barack Obama is best captured in his comments on the death of Trayvon Martin, and the ensuing fray. Obama has pitched his presidency as a monument to moderation.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.... Sigh, God, that was a good one. Obama has, at every turn of his candidacy and presidency, slapped the other side of the aisle directly and repeatedly in the face, and then been shocked when they refuse to work with him, as though they might have some degree of self-respect.


Despite his sloganeering for change and progress, Obama is a conservative revolutionary, and nowhere is his conservative character revealed more than in the very sphere where he holds singular gravity—race.

Barack Obama is not a conservative in any sense of the word, and never has been. Words mean shit!

Y'know, I am going to sum up the Trayvon Martin stuff in the article thusly: I was against Zimmerman in the whole affair, and argued a number of times against on these forums, but even I want to slap the living crap out of this author. I mean, seriously, it's the height of race-baiting sanctimony. For one, Zimmerman wasn't white, and it wasn't about skin color, but how Trayvon was dressed, which yes, is a stupid thing to make a judgment call like that on, but it doesn't make it any more about race. It was about a member of neighborhood-watch deciding he was dirt harry, and taking the law into his own hands against the orders of 911 operators, and escalating an encounter that ended in unnecessary death. To my mind, when you do everything involved in starting the fight, you don't get a claim of self-defense anymore.

Oh sweet mother of God, there's five pages of sanctimonious crap like this in the article. Okay, having read the whole thing I'm going to sum up: The article at no point, in all of it's pages and PAGES of text wall, puts even a single instance of racism against Obama or fear about Obama being black. Nothing, not a god damned thing. So the whole article is a wash as regards its title.

Okay, apologies everyone for the wall of text that is this post, but I just can't stand this kind of crap.

[jimnyc]

Okay, apologies everyone for the wall of text that is this post, but I just can't stand this kind of crap.

VERY well stated. We don't always agree on this subject - but I know I always learn more and move a little more towards that direction, just because of the way you approach it. If only so many others couldn't learn that little secret.

[gabosaurus]

It's all an American culture war. http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-duck-dynasty-exposed-a-new-christmas-culture-war-20131224-hv6qm.html

[DragonStryk72]

It's all an American culture war. http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-duck-dynasty-exposed-a-new-christmas-culture-war-20131224-hv6qm.html

I don't tend to agree here. Having seen many who support gay rights back Phil Robertson, I don't think this issue is actually about gay rights. More and more it seems to be a line in the sand that people have arrived at, where we're starting to protect the right to simply disagree with us without having to lose your livelihood, and that is a very good thing.

In any movement for greater rights, there has to be a point where an overstep occurs. That's just the way human nature works. While highly intolerant behavior should not be countenanced, at the same time, turning every comment into a witch-hunt is wrong as well. This line is being reached now, as people have gotten to know Robertson over the past couple years through YouTube and the show, and it's obvious if you know him that he has no issue with gays, but the company instead focused on one sentence they didn't like, and made an enormous deal out of it that didn't need to occur, without attempting to get clarification of any kind, or even looking at the rest of the interview, where he talks about loving everyone, living by example, and let God sort the rest out.

Destroying the livelihood of every person who disagrees with you is simply the height of intolerance. The scope of their opinion's reach shouldn't matter, either, because that's inherently hypocritical. Yeah, he mouthed one bad, barely intelligible line (sorry, cajun accents just get muddled to hell), and shouldn't have to watched his career go down the toilet for it.

[DragonStryk72]

VERY well stated. We don't always agree on this subject - but I know I always learn more and move a little more towards that direction, just because of the way you approach it. If only so many others couldn't learn that little secret.

That's the core problem of my side of the argument, unfortunately. Too many times, in their ardor for equality, they create greater inequality, rather than bringing everyone together. It would be a simple enough thing to converse about these things, and present a strong, solid argument.

For instance, gay pride parades: While it's all well and good to be proud of who you are, it's part of what builds healthy self-esteem, there is also a fine line between being proud of yourself, and rubbing it in the face of others, which is a step backwards, both for those involved, and the movement as a whole. This becomes ever more outlandish showings at said parades.

Then, of course, you have those who go on the attack, such as poet, and at times, Gabs. While I agree with them on the premise of gay rights, I do not agree with their arguments, or standoffish way in which they approach the subject. There's no need for getting all worked up, and slamming people all over the place. We can talk like rational adults, and hopefully win some people over by showing them that we really aren't trying to destroy a way of life, but simply to bring greater equality to the table.