# 'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks



## American_Jihad

*They tell me have have to say something at the beginning of a post*, *well there it is<<<---------*






*'Duck Dynasty' stars attending White House Correspondents' Dinner ... as Pat Robertson's guests*​
April 24, 2013, 7:37 PM EST
By Tim Kenneally
TheWrap 






The White House Correspondents' Dinner has just gotten a lot hairier.

"Duck Dynasty" stars Willie and Korie Robertson are attending the event as guests of CBN News, the news arm of the Christian Broadcasting Network, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, CBN said Wednesday.

...

'Duck Dynasty' stars attending White House Correspondents' Dinner ... as Pat Robertson's guests - MSN TV News

Duck Commander ...


...


----------



## Gracie

They crack me up. I espeically like the dad and his bro.


----------



## American_Jihad

Gracie said:


> They crack me up. I espeically like the dad and his bro.



Yeh, he's funny...











Uncle Si Robertson from Duck Dynasty without a beard in his military clothes ...​


----------



## TemplarKormac

I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, come to think of it, there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented. 

But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum. 

Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.

The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.


----------



## Kosh

Well as the far left has demonstrated that they believe that their programmed opinions/propaganda is "fact".

Once the far left learns that their programming is DNC propaganda then we all can move forward.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Kosh said:


> Well as the far left has demonstrated that they believe that their programmed opinions/propaganda is "fact".
> 
> Once the far left learns that their programming is DNC propaganda then we all can move forward.



Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.


----------



## Kosh

TemplarKormac said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well as the far left has demonstrated that they believe that their programmed opinions/propaganda is "fact".
> 
> Once the far left learns that their programming is DNC propaganda then we all can move forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
Click to expand...


True, but the far left seems to be the worst of the lot and far more dangerous and damaging.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Kosh said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well as the far left has demonstrated that they believe that their programmed opinions/propaganda is "fact".
> 
> Once the far left learns that their programming is DNC propaganda then we all can move forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but the far left seems to be the worst of the lot and far more dangerous and damaging.
Click to expand...


As is the case with the far right, too. To say that one side is worse than the other is just the party talking. That's exactly why I wrote this OP. Political party influence has taken away the freedom to think, to choose, and to express without reprisal.


----------



## Kosh

TemplarKormac said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the far left seems to be the worst of the lot and far more dangerous and damaging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is the case with the far right, too. To say that one side is worse than the other is just the party talking. That's exactly why I wrote this OP. Political party influence has taken away the freedom to think, to choose, and to express without reprisal.
Click to expand...


However the far right is not in charge of the (R)'s, the far left is in full force in the (D)'s.

That is why the far left is way and above more dangerous. 

You may have had a point if the far right was in control of one of the two major parties, they are not. 

If the far right was in charge of the (R)'s like the far left is in charge of the (D)'s I would have no problem speaking out against them. Right now in the republican party the fringe far right elements are were they are supposed to be and not in charge.

Although all the far left will tell you is that the Tea Party is far right. But then again if JFK were alive today he would be to far right for the (D)'s today. Even Carter is to far right of todays (D) party.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Kosh said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the far left seems to be the worst of the lot and far more dangerous and damaging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is the case with the far right, too. To say that one side is worse than the other is just the party talking. That's exactly why I wrote this OP. Political party influence has taken away the freedom to think, to choose, and to express without reprisal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However the far right is not in charge of the (R)'s, the far left is in full force in the (D)'s.
> 
> That is why the far left is way and above more dangerous.
> 
> *You may have had a point if the far right was n control of one of the two major parties, they are not.
> *
> If the far right was in charge of the (R)'s like the far left is in charge of the (D)'s I would have no problem speaking out against them. Right in the republican party the fringe far right elements are were they are supposed to be and not in charge.
> 
> Although all the far left will tell you is that the Tea Party is far right. But then again if JFK were alive today he would be to far right for the (D)'s today. Even Carter is to far right of todays (D) party.
Click to expand...


Then what of the Tea Party?


----------



## Kosh

TemplarKormac said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> As is the case with the far right, too. To say that one side is worse than the other is just the party talking. That's exactly why I wrote this OP. Political party influence has taken away the freedom to think, to choose, and to express without reprisal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However the far right is not in charge of the (R)'s, the far left is in full force in the (D)'s.
> 
> That is why the far left is way and above more dangerous.
> 
> *You may have had a point if the far right was n control of one of the two major parties, they are not.
> *
> If the far right was in charge of the (R)'s like the far left is in charge of the (D)'s I would have no problem speaking out against them. Right in the republican party the fringe far right elements are were they are supposed to be and not in charge.
> 
> Although all the far left will tell you is that the Tea Party is far right. But then again if JFK were alive today he would be to far right for the (D)'s today. Even Carter is to far right of todays (D) party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what of the Tea Party?
Click to expand...


Despite the many far left claims/propaganda the Tea Party is not the far right. 

Could they eventually become that? Of course that is the case with any group, however at this point I don't see the Tea Party as wanting to abolish the 13th amendment.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

I don't think everyone is co opted by party ideals. I think that is pretty much confined to the hardliners. Just yesterday I was labeled a liberal no less than 4 or 5 times and those are the people im talking about.


----------



## TheOldSchool

TemplarKormac said:


> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.



I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.

I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.


----------



## Kosh

TheOldSchool said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
Click to expand...


Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.

When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?

The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.


----------



## gipper

The United States has become much like the old USSR.  If you hold an "incorrect" opinion, you will be denounced and your career threatened.  See global warming, Obamacare, Racism, Sexism, Homosexuality, Big Government, etc.............................................

Our main steam media is much like the old Pravda.  It protects the State first and foremost...truth is inconsequential.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
Click to expand...


Kosh, you are speaking hardline reactionary opinions that are not justified by the facts.

For instance, Civil Rights voting in Congress divided along geographical lines, North and West Pubs and Dems voting overwhelming for civil rights against Southern Pubs and Dems voting overwhelmingly against civil rights.  Those are the *facts*.


----------



## Kosh

JakeStarkey said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kosh, you are speaking hardline reactionary opinions that are not justified by the facts.
> 
> For instance, Civil Rights voting in Congress divided along geographical lines, North and West Pubs and Dems voting overwhelming for civil rights against Southern Pubs and Dems voting overwhelmingly against civil rights.  Those are the *facts*.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, but the far left has to make excuses because they know they were the party against the civil rights. Like it or not that is the truth and the facts. It took the Republicans bargaining to make it happen. If the far left wants to believe an alternate history that is fine, but please don't pass it off as a "fact".

Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones will say or do anything to protect their far left religion.


----------



## Old Rocks

This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid referances to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative. 

Ignoring the demograpics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.


----------



## Vox

TemplarKormac said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> As is the case with the far right, too. To say that one side is worse than the other is just the party talking. That's exactly why I wrote this OP. Political party influence has taken away the freedom to think, to choose, and to express without reprisal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However the far right is not in charge of the (R)'s, the far left is in full force in the (D)'s.
> 
> That is why the far left is way and above more dangerous.
> 
> *You may have had a point if the far right was n control of one of the two major parties, they are not.
> *
> If the far right was in charge of the (R)'s like the far left is in charge of the (D)'s I would have no problem speaking out against them. Right in the republican party the fringe far right elements are were they are supposed to be and not in charge.
> 
> Although all the far left will tell you is that the Tea Party is far right. But then again if JFK were alive today he would be to far right for the (D)'s today. Even Carter is to far right of todays (D) party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what of the Tea Party?
Click to expand...


and what is the problem with Tea Party?

neither are they FAR RIGHT, nor are they in control


----------



## Vox

TheOldSchool said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  *Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party *because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
Click to expand...


neither statement is true.
especially about white women 

those are at the very least 50/50 and the majority clearly migrate from the democrat-leaning while being young and single ( and not very bright) to being married and taking care of the family ( when the realities of life school you fast)


----------



## WelfareQueen

TheOldSchool said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
Click to expand...



The empirical evidence suggests people who routinely vote Democrat feel like they need to be protected.  It's kind of the wimpy guy syndrome.  That's why cops, military guys, and gun owners tend to vote Republican.

The core Democrat voting blocs are all groups that tend to feel the Government needs to protect them.  Blacks, gays, and single women.  The Democrat Party skillfully plays to their fears.  

The Republican Party plays to the fears of the tough self-sufficient men and women who feel threatened by Government overreach and a dissolution of the values that made this Country great.  Those mean Democrats will take away your guns and your God.  You will be overrun by a greedy, lazy, minority horde.  

Both parties play to fear.  Personally, I generally don't like the Democrat philosophy...not because I dislike minorities, but because I do not want the Government all up in my junk.  I can take care of myself just fine, thank you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Vox said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> However the far right is not in charge of the (R)'s, the far left is in full force in the (D)'s.
> 
> That is why the far left is way and above more dangerous.
> 
> *You may have had a point if the far right was n control of one of the two major parties, they are not.
> *
> If the far right was in charge of the (R)'s like the far left is in charge of the (D)'s I would have no problem speaking out against them. Right in the republican party the fringe far right elements are were they are supposed to be and not in charge.
> 
> Although all the far left will tell you is that the Tea Party is far right. But then again if JFK were alive today he would be to far right for the (D)'s today. Even Carter is to far right of todays (D) party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what of the Tea Party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what is the problem with Tea Party?
> 
> neither are they FAR RIGHT, nor are they in control
Click to expand...


I was watching with pleasure as they brought the Republican establishment to their knees during the Government shutdown, but I'm no fool, Vox. The Unions, Environmentalists, Civil Rights activists, Gay Rights activists, and Feminists can all do the same to the Democratic party. 

There's always a group in one party or the other that has the establishment running in fear, unwilling or unable to bring about their own agendas or opinions for fear of alienating a key voting bloc. Remember how John Boehner reacted to the Tea Party over the budget? It's a similar pattern between the Tea Party and the innumerable special interest groups that have control of the Democratic party. 

Just FYI, I am a member of the Tea Party. But like I said, I can share their ideals without being consumed by them. I am not a believer in blind loyalty.


----------



## WelfareQueen

I have a couple of friends who are tea party members.  The are fine, patriotic Americans.  They are not overly concerned about social issues.  The are very concerned about the erosion of our Constitutional Rights and the fiscal situation of our Government.  

People who assume Tea Party folks are "right wing nut jobs" who are vehemently anti-gay, anti-minority could not be more wrong.  That is not where they are coming from.


----------



## Vox

TemplarKormac said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what of the Tea Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what is the problem with Tea Party?
> 
> neither are they FAR RIGHT, nor are they in control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was watching with pleasure as they brought the Republican establishment to their knees during the Government shutdown, but I'm no fool, Vox. The Unions, Environmentalists, Civil Rights activists, Gay Rights activists, and Feminists can all do the same to the Democratic party.
> 
> There's always a group in one party or the other that has the establishment running in fear, unwilling or unable to bring about their own agendas or opinions for fear of alienating a key voting bloc. Remember how John Boehner reacted to the Tea Party over the budget? It's a similar pattern between the Tea Party and the innumerable special interest groups that have control of the Democratic party.
> 
> Just FYI, I am a member of the Tea Party. But like I said, I can share their ideals without being consumed by them. I am not a believer in blind loyalty.
Click to expand...



and what is so far right about bringing republican establishment to their knees during the shutdown?

are you sure you REALLY gave it a thought through, TK and are not just repeating the media templates which have been repeated ad nauseum exactly for this reason?

insisting on government shutdown has nothing to do with "being far right".

It has to do with being strong in ones beliefs and able to withstand pressure from the opponent - which by itself is not a political spectrum characteristic.

what the media and all other leftard shills have created is this lying narrative that somehow being able to withstand pressure and not caving upon it ( or not agreeing for pork exchange and business as usual) is somehow a fringe feature.

since WHEN?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Given that I am a Tea Partier, I speak from experience. People like me should exemplify a complete contradiction to the "Tea Partiers are right wing nut job reactionary racist bigots" stereotype.


----------



## Vox

WelfareQueen said:


> I have a couple of friends who are tea party members.  The are fine, patriotic Americans.  They are not overly concerned about social issues.  The are very concerned about the erosion of our Constitutional Rights and the fiscal situation of our Government.
> 
> People who assume Tea Party folks are "right wing nut jobs" who are vehemently anti-gay, anti-minority could not be more wrong.  That is not where they are coming from.



standard people don't "assume" anything.

people usually parrot what has been repeated in the media without giving it too much analysis.

that is why the leftard lying propaganda machine is so effective - because the lies can be repeated constantly and people will eventually believe it.

Goebbels was not an idiot.

he was evil, but very smart.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Vox said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what is the problem with Tea Party?
> 
> neither are they FAR RIGHT, nor are they in control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was watching with pleasure as they brought the Republican establishment to their knees during the Government shutdown, but I'm no fool, Vox. The Unions, Environmentalists, Civil Rights activists, Gay Rights activists, and Feminists can all do the same to the Democratic party.
> 
> There's always a group in one party or the other that has the establishment running in fear, unwilling or unable to bring about their own agendas or opinions for fear of alienating a key voting bloc. Remember how John Boehner reacted to the Tea Party over the budget? It's a similar pattern between the Tea Party and the innumerable special interest groups that have control of the Democratic party.
> 
> Just FYI, I am a member of the Tea Party. But like I said, I can share their ideals without being consumed by them. I am not a believer in blind loyalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and what is so far right about bringing republican establishment to their knees during the shutdown?
> 
> are you sure you REALLY gave it a thought through, TK and are not just repeating the media templates which have been repeated ad nauseum exactly for this reason?
> 
> insisting on government shutdown has nothing to do with "being far right".
> 
> It has to do with being strong in ones beliefs and able to withstand pressure from the opponent - which by itself is not a political spectrum characteristic.
> 
> what the media and all other leftard shills have created is this lying narrative that somehow being able to withstand pressure and not caving upon it ( or not agreeing for pork exchange and business as usual) is somehow a fringe feature.
> 
> since WHEN?
Click to expand...


Why are you getting so defensive? _Notice how I haven't labeled the Tea Party "far right" yet._ In fact, I resist such a label. If that were true, I would be saying I was far right. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted the government shutdown to last as long as possible. 

I don't make posts like these without giving serious thought to them. Should I post anything absent of thought, that will be the day I turn into one of our abhorrent board trolls.


----------



## Vox

I don't think Tea Party as a movement is even that RIGHT to start with.

because I know what the very loose movement stands for.

But I usually analyze whatever is being told to me and I generally do not believe what media are spewing ( an immune response from my previous life) altogether.

However, I can clearly see that the vast majority of neutral people are easily being brainwashed in the needed direction exactly by the example of the Tea party.


----------



## bendog

Old Rocks said:


> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid referances to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demograpics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.



Today's gop already has universal care:  medicare.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Thought is good.  Lack of thought = bad.


----------



## Vox

TemplarKormac said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was watching with pleasure as they brought the Republican establishment to their knees during the Government shutdown, but I'm no fool, Vox. The Unions, Environmentalists, Civil Rights activists, Gay Rights activists, and Feminists can all do the same to the Democratic party.
> 
> There's always a group in one party or the other that has the establishment running in fear, unwilling or unable to bring about their own agendas or opinions for fear of alienating a key voting bloc. Remember how John Boehner reacted to the Tea Party over the budget? It's a similar pattern between the Tea Party and the innumerable special interest groups that have control of the Democratic party.
> 
> Just FYI, I am a member of the Tea Party. But like I said, I can share their ideals without being consumed by them. I am not a believer in blind loyalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what is so far right about bringing republican establishment to their knees during the shutdown?
> 
> are you sure you REALLY gave it a thought through, TK and are not just repeating the media templates which have been repeated ad nauseum exactly for this reason?
> 
> insisting on government shutdown has nothing to do with "being far right".
> 
> It has to do with being strong in ones beliefs and able to withstand pressure from the opponent - which by itself is not a political spectrum characteristic.
> 
> what the media and all other leftard shills have created is this lying narrative that somehow being able to withstand pressure and not caving upon it ( or not agreeing for pork exchange and business as usual) is somehow a fringe feature.
> 
> since WHEN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting so defensive? _Notice how I haven't labeled the Tea Party "far right" yet._ In fact, I resist such a label. If that were true, I would be saying I was far right. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted the government shutdown to last as long as possible.
> 
> I don't make posts like these without giving serious thought to them. Should I post anything absent of thought, that will be the day I turn into one of our abhorrent board trolls.
Click to expand...


DEFENSIVE?

I am not getting defensive at all, I just point another side of the supposedly black and white issue.

which is not black and white at all, but being labeled as such.


----------



## WelfareQueen

bendog said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid referances to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demograpics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today's gop already has universal care:  medicare.
Click to expand...



The same tired, stupid, and racist "the GOP is screwed by demographics" point made for the 8,000,000th time.  

Voters are people.  They are not robots.  They are not vast voting blocs.  Many of them actually have brains.  Stop being so condescending and dismissive of the independence of the American voter.  You cannot place them in a cookie cutter.


----------



## bendog

WelfareQueen said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid referances to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demograpics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today's gop already has universal care:  medicare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The same tired, stupid, and racist "the GOP is screwed by demographics" point made for the 8,000,000th time.
> 
> Voters are people.  They are not robots.  They are not vast voting blocs.  Many of them actually have brains.  Stop being so condescending and dismissive of the independence of the American voter.  You cannot place them in a cookie cutter.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry voting demographics don't agree with your condescending pre-conceived notions of truth justice and the american way.

The tea party supports medicare.  Live with it.

PS, but there are signs that gop leaders are emerging to challange RW ideology on distribution of govt largesse


----------



## Vox

WelfareQueen said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid referances to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demograpics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today's gop already has universal care:  medicare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The same tired, stupid, and racist "the GOP is screwed by demographics" point made for the 8,000,000th time.
> 
> Voters are people.  They are not robots.  They are not vast voting blocs.  Many of them actually have brains.  Stop being so condescending and dismissive of the independence of the American voter.  You cannot place them in a cookie cutter.
Click to expand...


and untrue, btw.

neither black, nor latino community was ever pro-republican. the only exception was for W election - and therefore dimocraps made sure that his proposal for immigration  measures were shut down before they could even be launched.
because dimocraps want to be the only plantators on the minority plantation.

and all the repetition of the untrue patterns are just to brainwash the sheeple majority in the direction - they can not vote any other way than dimocrap, if they have even one black or latino erythrocyte  - even if it is against their own interest ( which always is - voting dimocrap is ALWAYS against your own interest, unless you are an extremely rich or the scum at the bottom).


----------



## Vox

bendog said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's gop already has universal care:  medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same tired, stupid, and racist "the GOP is screwed by demographics" point made for the 8,000,000th time.
> 
> Voters are people.  They are not robots.  They are not vast voting blocs.  Many of them actually have brains.  Stop being so condescending and dismissive of the independence of the American voter.  You cannot place them in a cookie cutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry voting demographics don't agree with your condescending pre-conceived notions of truth justice and the american way.
> 
> The tea party supports medicare.  Live with it.
> 
> PS, but there are signs that gop leaders are emerging to challange RW ideology on distribution of govt largesse
Click to expand...


voting demographics have not changed for the last 50 years.
they do not matter


----------



## WelfareQueen

bendog said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's gop already has universal care:  medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same tired, stupid, and racist "the GOP is screwed by demographics" point made for the 8,000,000th time.
> 
> Voters are people.  They are not robots.  They are not vast voting blocs.  Many of them actually have brains.  Stop being so condescending and dismissive of the independence of the American voter.  You cannot place them in a cookie cutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry voting demographics don't agree with your condescending pre-conceived notions of truth justice and the american way.
> 
> The tea party supports medicare.  Live with it.
> 
> PS, but there are signs that gop leaders are emerging to challange RW ideology on distribution of govt largesse
Click to expand...



You quote a racist post and then say all GOP supporters are on Medicare.  Nice.  That mentality is not going to promote your ideology very far.  Sorry.   and btw...people are human beings, and voters....not demographics.  That is a marketing term and again betrays your mentality.


----------



## Vox

the sheeple usually gets that  voting dimocrap is ALWAYS against your own interest, unless you are an extremely rich or the scum at the bottom, but it has to take a hit on a pocket and on the head.

which obamacare crap will definitely do. some idiots will die and still be leftard idiots, but the relative majority has common sense when it comes to their own interest.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Vox said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what is so far right about bringing republican establishment to their knees during the shutdown?
> 
> are you sure you REALLY gave it a thought through, TK and are not just repeating the media templates which have been repeated ad nauseum exactly for this reason?
> 
> insisting on government shutdown has nothing to do with "being far right".
> 
> It has to do with being strong in ones beliefs and able to withstand pressure from the opponent - which by itself is not a political spectrum characteristic.
> 
> what the media and all other leftard shills have created is this lying narrative that somehow being able to withstand pressure and not caving upon it ( or not agreeing for pork exchange and business as usual) is somehow a fringe feature.
> 
> since WHEN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you getting so defensive? _Notice how I haven't labeled the Tea Party "far right" yet._ In fact, I resist such a label. If that were true, I would be saying I was far right. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted the government shutdown to last as long as possible.
> 
> I don't make posts like these without giving serious thought to them. Should I post anything absent of thought, that will be the day I turn into one of our abhorrent board trolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DEFENSIVE?
> 
> I am not getting defensive at all, I just point another side of the supposedly black and white issue.
> 
> which is not black and white at all, but being labeled as such.
Click to expand...


I don't have an issue with the Tea Party. I don't think they were 'far right.' I don't believe either the former nor the latter of those two statements. I have repeatedly made it clear I am a member. But being such, I will not have my core ideals and opinions co-opted by them. If you take issue with the Tea Party being called 'far right', talk to Kosh, he made that assertion. 

The Tea Party is a breath of fresh air for America, Vox, but the political pattern is undeniable. If looking from a purely political standpoint, we would be seen as a fringe element of the Republican party. I'm being objective, nothing more.  It's like the last two or three people on the team in a game of tug-of-war, sometimes they make more of a difference than the ones in the middle.


----------



## Vox

TemplarKormac said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you getting so defensive? _Notice how I haven't labeled the Tea Party "far right" yet._ In fact, I resist such a label. If that were true, I would be saying I was far right. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted the government shutdown to last as long as possible.
> 
> I don't make posts like these without giving serious thought to them. Should I post anything absent of thought, that will be the day I turn into one of our abhorrent board trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DEFENSIVE?
> 
> I am not getting defensive at all, I just point another side of the supposedly black and white issue.
> 
> which is not black and white at all, but being labeled as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have an issue with the Tea Party. I don't think they were 'far right.' I don't believe either the former nor the latter of those two statements. I have repeatedly made it clear I am a member. But being such, I will not have my core ideals and opinions co-opted by them. If you take issue with the Tea Party being called 'far right', talk to Kosh, he made that assertion.
> 
> The Tea Party is a breath of fresh air for America, Vox, but the political pattern is undeniable. If looking from a purely political standpoint*, we would be seen as a fringe element of the Republican party. *I'm being objective, nothing more.  It's like the last two or three people on the team in a game of tug-of-war, sometimes they make more of a difference than the ones in the middle.
Click to expand...


I know, you do not. I was just pointing out that the pattern of labeling them a "far right wing" has it's effect even on the people who are sympathetic to the movement , maybe not directly, but some undertones 
Tea party can be seen as a fringe element only from the standpoint of tactics of doing business in Washington, DC, not from the standpoint of the political values.
All of those called RINOs do not differ much in the values system, they differ a lot in the methods of achievement of the said values.


----------



## bendog

oh I don't thing the TPM is the fringe of the gop.  I think elements like Freedom works has used them to primary out, and intimidate other, gop pols who want to broaden the party's scope from simply being about protecting the 1%'s econ interests to the detriment of the rest.  And THAT is a losing strategy ultimately, and probably how we ended up with a black man named Barak Obama.

The TPM is just a reaction to the BushII policiies and the gop's willingness to abandon basic gop principles of limited govt ... and lip service to less deficits ... though reality requires me to notice the deficits tend to be smaller pre reagan, and with Sllick.  And amazingly they are looking at getting smaller again.

Sure there are extremes at either end of both parties. But you have to be blind to not notice the dem left wing has been remarkably consistent compared to the party that wants to invade Iran to usher in the Rapture and simultaneously grasp limited govt.


----------



## Katzndogz

Of course there is freedom of opinion.   Provided that the democrats have approved of that opinion.  Disagreement with democrat policies means, naturally, that you are not really expressing your own opinion, but some other opinion based on erroneous information.

It has always been the position of liberals that they are so gentle, so right, so well informed, that no one could possibly disagree with them absent some nefarious influence.


----------



## Vox

bendog said:


> oh I don't thing the TPM is the fringe of the gop.  I think elements like Freedom works has used them to primary out, and intimidate other, gop pols who want to broaden the party's scope from simply being about protecting the 1%'s econ interests to the detriment of the rest.  And THAT is a losing strategy ultimately, and probably how we ended up with a black man named Barak Obama.
> 
> The TPM is just a reaction to the BushII policiies and the gop's willingness to abandon basic gop principles of limited govt ... and lip service to less deficits ... though reality requires me to notice the deficits tend to be smaller pre reagan, and with Sllick.  And amazingly they are looking at getting smaller again.
> 
> Sure there are extremes at either end of both parties. But you have to be blind to not notice the dem left wing has been remarkably consistent compared to the party that wants to invade Iran to usher in the Rapture and simultaneously grasp limited govt.



except it is ALWAYS the dimocrap party which protects the 1% the most and takes care of the 1% FIRST and FOREMOST - on the expense of the middle class. their last most preposterous achievement in the direction is obamacare crap.
always.
what they lie to the dumbos like yourself meanwhile - does not matter.
you will eat up ANY leftard propaganda lie withought thinking.


----------



## BillyZane

TemplarKormac said:


> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, no there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.



The problem with opinion is that today so many people sadly spout off UNINFORMED opinions, and they are almost gleeful in the fact that they completely ignore facts wen making those opinions. And that goes for liberals, conservatives, and everyone in between. I've seen COUNTLESS people on various sides of various issues just completely avoid ANY fact and then say "this is my opinion".

Well, an opinion that ignores facts is worthless. Unfortunately far too many Americans spout just such opinions, some of them even manage to get elected.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh, you are speaking hardline reactionary opinions that are not justified by the facts.
> 
> For instance, Civil Rights voting in *Congress divided along geographical lines, North and West Pubs and Dems voting overwhelming for civil rights against Southern Pubs and Dems voting overwhelmingly against civil rights*.  Those are the *facts*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, .
Click to expand...

 I get it, you think your _*opinion *_is a fact.  It's not.


----------



## bendog

Vox said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh I don't thing the TPM is the fringe of the gop.  I think elements like Freedom works has used them to primary out, and intimidate other, gop pols who want to broaden the party's scope from simply being about protecting the 1%'s econ interests to the detriment of the rest.  And THAT is a losing strategy ultimately, and probably how we ended up with a black man named Barak Obama.
> 
> The TPM is just a reaction to the BushII policiies and the gop's willingness to abandon basic gop principles of limited govt ... and lip service to less deficits ... though reality requires me to notice the deficits tend to be smaller pre reagan, and with Sllick.  And amazingly they are looking at getting smaller again.
> 
> Sure there are extremes at either end of both parties. But you have to be blind to not notice the dem left wing has been remarkably consistent compared to the party that wants to invade Iran to usher in the Rapture and simultaneously grasp limited govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except it is ALWAYS the dimocrap party which protects the 1% the most and takes care of the 1% FIRST and FOREMOST - on the expense of the middle class. their last most preposterous achievement in the direction is obamacare crap.
> always.
> what they lie to the dumbos like yourself meanwhile - does not matter.
> you will eat up ANY leftard propaganda lie withought thinking.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I've really notice the top 1% lining up for the dems.  mellon scafide, mittens, kochs ....  LOL

But back to the thread, certainly the more ideologically pure on both sides don't accept freedom of speech within the party.  But, why should that be surprising.  But the pt was the gop's embrace of neoconservatism ... and elective war .... was an anathema to conservative thought going back to even before FDR, when the party embraced isolationism.


----------



## TemplarKormac

I think some of you are missing the point of my message, while some of you are absolutely on point. The fact there are those of you that you see each other as an enemy or ally, friend or foe, is proof positive that freedom of opinion no longer exists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Vox said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> However the far right is not in charge of the (R)'s, the far left is in full force in the (D)'s.
> 
> That is why the far left is way and above more dangerous.
> 
> *You may have had a point if the far right was n control of one of the two major parties, they are not.
> *
> If the far right was in charge of the (R)'s like the far left is in charge of the (D)'s I would have no problem speaking out against them. Right in the republican party the fringe far right elements are were they are supposed to be and not in charge.
> 
> Although all the far left will tell you is that the Tea Party is far right. But then again if JFK were alive today he would be to far right for the (D)'s today. Even Carter is to far right of todays (D) party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what of the Tea Party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what is the problem with Tea Party?
> 
> neither are they FAR RIGHT, nor are they in control
Click to expand...


Thank the Lord they are not in control of the GOP now, and, yes, they are out of the mainstream far far to the reactionary right.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_"The empirical evidence suggests people who routinely vote Democrat feel like they need to be protected"_

There is no empirical evidence of the sort.


----------



## Vox

bendog said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh I don't thing the TPM is the fringe of the gop.  I think elements like Freedom works has used them to primary out, and intimidate other, gop pols who want to broaden the party's scope from simply being about protecting the 1%'s econ interests to the detriment of the rest.  And THAT is a losing strategy ultimately, and probably how we ended up with a black man named Barak Obama.
> 
> The TPM is just a reaction to the BushII policiies and the gop's willingness to abandon basic gop principles of limited govt ... and lip service to less deficits ... though reality requires me to notice the deficits tend to be smaller pre reagan, and with Sllick.  And amazingly they are looking at getting smaller again.
> 
> Sure there are extremes at either end of both parties. But you have to be blind to not notice the dem left wing has been remarkably consistent compared to the party that wants to invade Iran to usher in the Rapture and simultaneously grasp limited govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except it is ALWAYS the dimocrap party which protects the 1% the most and takes care of the 1% FIRST and FOREMOST - on the expense of the middle class. their last most preposterous achievement in the direction is obamacare crap.
> always.
> what they lie to the dumbos like yourself meanwhile - does not matter.
> you will eat up ANY leftard propaganda lie withought thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've really notice the top 1% lining up for the dems.  mellon scafide, mittens, kochs ....
Click to expand...


of course they are. they are their masters, as dimocraps policies benefit the 1% the most.

ALWAYS.

like this brilliant robbery - obamacare - this is better than commie expropriation - it robs middle class TWICE - when you pay for NOTHING ( bloated premiums) and then pay for the services ( co-pays and deductibles)  essentially you are paying for no services and the government makes sure you pay to the 1% 

now start your oda about how this crap obamacare is helping the uninsured


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, many of the TeaPs are consumed be far right reactionary social con values that are anti-gay and pro-hatred.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Vox said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same tired, stupid, and racist "the GOP is screwed by demographics" point made for the 8,000,000th time.
> 
> Voters are people.  They are not robots.  They are not vast voting blocs.  Many of them actually have brains.  Stop being so condescending and dismissive of the independence of the American voter.  You cannot place them in a cookie cutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry voting demographics don't agree with your condescending pre-conceived notions of truth justice and the american way.
> 
> The tea party supports medicare.  Live with it.
> 
> PS, but there are signs that gop leaders are emerging to challange RW ideology on distribution of govt largesse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> voting demographics have not changed for the last 50 years.
> they do not matter
Click to expand...


I suggest to you they do matter because we have lost the popular vote five times and the electoral vote four times in the last six elections because of those demographics.

They won't change, we have to if we wish to compete nationally with a chance for success.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Kosh said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well as the far left has demonstrated that they believe that their programmed opinions/propaganda is "fact".
> 
> Once the far left learns that their programming is DNC propaganda then we all can move forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but the far left seems to be the worst of the lot and far more dangerous and damaging.
Click to expand...


I've asked this too many times and you've never been able (and likely can't)  define what you mean by the "far left".  It appears the OP is spot on, you're one of those who simply parrots what you've been told.  Maybe you're too poorly educated to actually think - it is a learned skill - and that's sad.


----------



## bendog

TemplarKormac said:


> I think some of you are missing the point of my message, while some of you are absolutely on point. The fact there are those of you that you see each other as an enemy or ally, friend or foe, is proof positive that freedom of opinion no longer exists.



I see your point, and I agree.  I voted for BushII because I hoped he'd continue the mainstream gop governance of his father and Slick.  I didn't expect him to jerk the party to a neoconservative greater Israel for policy and an keynesian econ stimulus at a time when we already had full employment.  LOL

There's no doubt that there's merit to the OP, but at the same time there is a battle right now for the hearts and minds of the more conservative party.  Not even the very fringe of the dems really embraces Marxism.  They embrace the current Pope's econ/govt view in the most recent exhortaion 

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other peoples pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone elses responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

The Gop in contrast does not have unamity of the use of force.  Some would attack Iran to protect Israel.  The myth of Reagan is trotted out to get rid of any financial or enviromental regulation, but Reagan himself created a recession to kill inflation.  The party is sort of sorting itself out.  You have guys like Bennett and Lugar suddenly not conservative enough, when in reality Bennett was to the right of BushII on spending and Lugar was to the right of BushII AND McCain on for policy.  Meanwhile poor Mitt was left trying to be Ceaser:  a wife to all his soldiers and a husband their wives.  (-:

And now the party leaders are amending the primary election to allow less direct impact by individuals.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well as the far left has demonstrated that they believe that their programmed opinions/propaganda is "fact".
> 
> Once the far left learns that their programming is DNC propaganda then we all can move forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
Click to expand...


I disagree, Templar.  Thoughts (which is what opinions are) are the only things we truly own and control in our lives, and minus advanced, intensive brainwashing techniques, no one can "program" us to think anything.

I think it's the individuals who are to blame.  People are lazy, and it's so damned easy to just kneejerk to a fast, easy answer without thinking it through that dogma becomes really appealing.

Do political parties take advantage of this human tendency?  Sure.  Are they responsible for creating it?  Nope.


----------



## Vox

JakeStarkey said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry voting demographics don't agree with your condescending pre-conceived notions of truth justice and the american way.
> 
> The tea party supports medicare.  Live with it.
> 
> PS, but there are signs that gop leaders are emerging to challange RW ideology on distribution of govt largesse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> voting demographics have not changed for the last 50 years.
> they do not matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest to you they do matter because we have lost the popular vote five times and the electoral vote four times in the last six elections because of those demographics.
> 
> They won't change, we have to if we wish to compete nationally with a chance for success.
Click to expand...


jake that is just blah-blah-blah.

popular vote does not decide the elections. 

lets see what happens when all those stupid non-voters will have to pay TWICE ( and a lot) for no services provided.

it is not the ones who vote which are the problem.

the problem is in those who do not


----------



## editec

TemplarKormac said:


> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, no there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.



So you replaced one meaningless term to describe yourself with another?

Why?

You are what YOU ARE.  You are unique and I seriously doubt that one word can describe the depth and breadth of your political POVs.

Why limit yourself with a label that will only MISLEAD people?

You're not a cartoon character, you're a thinking human being.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kosh said:


> Well as the far left has demonstrated that they believe that their programmed opinions/propaganda is "fact".
> 
> Once the far left learns that their programming is DNC propaganda then we all can move forward.



This from a guy who never makes a substantive fact based argument on the board.


----------



## bendog

Well, in a sense, perhaps the OP is about what Washington feared in a two party system, and why he wanted no parties at all.

And that's not a criticism of the OP.  

The dem party's ideology is a far cry from Truman's Fair Deal, which was the last gasp of FDR.  I submit the gop's ideology is to the right of Reagan.  The parties ebb and flow in appeasing their extemes while capturing the majority of the middle.  And the middle actually ebbs and flows along the political continuim, which allows the extremes to ebb and flow.  William Buckley found the gop extreme too extreme for him.  LOL


----------



## TemplarKormac

Old Rocks said:


> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid references to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demographics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.



This post is funny. Actually, Obamacare derives its roots from Hillarycare, or what was known as the Health Security Act of 1993. This was going on way before Romney stepped foot in the governor's office. And yes, as with Obamacare, it is redistributionist. I find it quite ironic that liberals like you are now trashing the ACA, after blindly supporting it before. What happened?

At any rate, if the Republicans were ignoring minorities, why are you guys exploiting them? You appeal their emotional side, not their rational side. Why do you continue to play the race card when none of your other ideals appeal to the American people? Last time I checked, Old Rocks, Republican speechwriters don't look to a random political messageboard for their material.


----------



## bendog

TemplarKormac said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid references to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demographics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post is funny. Actually, Obamacare derives its roots from Hillarycare, or what was known as the Health Security Act of 1993. This was going on way before Romney stepped foot in the governor's office. And yes, as with Obamacare, it is redistributionist. I find it quite ironic that liberals like you are now trashing the ACA, after blindly supporting it before. What happened?
> 
> At any rate, if the Republicans were ignoring minorities, why are you guys exploiting them? You appeal their emotional side, not their rational side. Why do you continue to play the race card when none of your other ideals appeal to the American people? Last time I checked, Old Rocks, Republican speechwriters don't look to a random political messageboard for their material.
Click to expand...


A path to citizenship is appealing to 'emotions?'  This is why I sometimes really can't take you seriously.


----------



## TemplarKormac

editec said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, no there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you replaced one meaningless term to describe yourself with another?
> 
> Why?
> 
> You are what YOU ARE.  You are unique and I seriously doubt that one word can describe the depth and breadth of your political POVs.
> 
> Why limit yourself with a label that will only MISLEAD people?
> 
> You're not a cartoon character, you're a thinking human being.
Click to expand...


Huh? I don't even know how to respond to this post. Did I strike a nerve? I know what I am, and I won't have others telling me what I am and what I am not. I resent being called a liar, and this OP isn't meant to mislead anyone.

I am what I am, editec. If you don't like the personality I have assumed here, I can help you put me on ignore, because TemplarKormac isn't going anywhere. If you honestly believe that I have problems discerning reality from fantasy, then quite frankly my friend, you have no idea who you're dealing with.


----------



## TemplarKormac

bendog said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid references to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demographics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post is funny. Actually, Obamacare derives its roots from Hillarycare, or what was known as the Health Security Act of 1993. This was going on way before Romney stepped foot in the governor's office. And yes, as with Obamacare, it is redistributionist. I find it quite ironic that liberals like you are now trashing the ACA, after blindly supporting it before. What happened?
> 
> At any rate, if the Republicans were ignoring minorities, why are you guys exploiting them? You appeal their emotional side, not their rational side. Why do you continue to play the race card when none of your other ideals appeal to the American people? Last time I checked, Old Rocks, Republican speechwriters don't look to a random political messageboard for their material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A path to citizenship is appealing to 'emotions?'  This is why I sometimes really can't take you seriously.
Click to expand...


More like a path around our immigration and enforcement law. This is why I don't take you seriously. Period. Why have laws if you're going to pass laws that circumvent other laws?


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheOldSchool said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
Click to expand...


Could you please define for us what "black culture" is, exactly?  Or "Hispanic culture"?  I'd love to know how Republicans/conservatives are supposed to believe it's "eroding our country" when, as far as I can tell, there isn't any such thing.  Sounds like a bunch of made-up propaganda that a lot of very dumb, lazy people have decided to buy into.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vox said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  *Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party *because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> neither statement is true.
> especially about white women
> 
> those are at the very least 50/50 and the majority clearly migrate from the democrat-leaning while being young and single ( and not very bright) to being married and taking care of the family ( when the realities of life school you fast)
Click to expand...


Whoops.  I actually missed that.  I'd also like a definition of "white women culture", as well.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well as the far left has demonstrated that they believe that their programmed opinions/propaganda is "fact".
> 
> Once the far left learns that their programming is DNC propaganda then we all can move forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, Templar.  Thoughts (which is what opinions are) are the only things we truly own and control in our lives, and minus advanced, intensive brainwashing techniques, no one can "program" us to think anything.
> 
> I think it's the individuals who are to blame.  People are lazy, and it's so damned easy to just kneejerk to a fast, easy answer without thinking it through that dogma becomes really appealing.
> 
> Do political parties take advantage of this human tendency?  Sure.  Are they responsible for creating it?  Nope.
Click to expand...


Our political parties take advantage of the "your team, my team" mentality. It isn't about facts, but about who is and who isn't on your team. Free thought goes right out of the window. Are they responsible for creating thought? No, but they are quite capable of influencing it. Thus where I get the notion that people are 'programmed' into supporting one side over another. The cognitive dissonance both parties encourage is quite serious. The absence of free thought is almost nowhere to be seen. While we do own our thoughts, we are capable of allowing who and what may influence them or occupy them.


----------



## Moonglow

TemplarKormac said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is funny. Actually, Obamacare derives its roots from Hillarycare, or what was known as the Health Security Act of 1993. This was going on way before Romney stepped foot in the governor's office. And yes, as with Obamacare, it is redistributionist. I find it quite ironic that liberals like you are now trashing the ACA, after blindly supporting it before. What happened?
> 
> At any rate, if the Republicans were ignoring minorities, why are you guys exploiting them? You appeal their emotional side, not their rational side. Why do you continue to play the race card when none of your other ideals appeal to the American people? Last time I checked, Old Rocks, Republican speechwriters don't look to a random political messageboard for their material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A path to citizenship is appealing to 'emotions?'  This is why I sometimes really can't take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like a path around our immigration and enforcement law. This is why I don't take you seriously. Period. Why have laws if you're going to pass laws that circumvent other laws?
Click to expand...




> 'We'll send criminals home first': Obama administration prepares to deport record numbers of illegal immigrants
> 
> Government is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said
> 
> 
> Read more: Obama prepares to deport record numbers of illegal immigrants | Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook





> Most distressing is Bush's assertion that deportation of millions of illegal aliens is "impossible."


Why Is it "Impossible" to Deport Illegal Aliens, Mr. Bush?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Moonglow said:


> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So. From one sentence that is from an intro paragraph. you try to explain your myopic feeble attempt at writing a serious epitaph of your_ one horse town _mind espousing your epiphany?
> 
> Why waste digital space and just re post or bump one of your other tired threads that you attempt to cement your id and ego upon us? You must have a bounty of free time in your attempts to post your tired redundant reiteration rhetoric you so bore us with.
> 
> Me thinks your time may be better spent.
Click to expand...


I don't have time for your trash. Negged.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bendog said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid referances to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demograpics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today's gop already has universal care:  medicare.
Click to expand...


Yes, because conservatives are SUCH big fans of Medicare.


----------



## Moonglow

TemplarKormac said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, Templar.  Thoughts (which is what opinions are) are the only things we truly own and control in our lives, and minus advanced, intensive brainwashing techniques, no one can "program" us to think anything.
> 
> I think it's the individuals who are to blame.  People are lazy, and it's so damned easy to just kneejerk to a fast, easy answer without thinking it through that dogma becomes really appealing.
> 
> Do political parties take advantage of this human tendency?  Sure.  Are they responsible for creating it?  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our political parties take advantage of the "your team, my team" mentality. It isn't about facts, but about who is and who isn't on your team. Free thought goes right out of the window. Are they responsible for creating thought? No, but they are quite capable of influencing it. Thus where I get the notion that people are 'programmed' into supporting one side over another. The cognitive dissonance both parties encourage is quite serious. The absence of free thought is almost nowhere to be seen. While we do own our thoughts, we are capable of allowing who and what may influence them or occupy them.
Click to expand...


Religion also brainwashes people, you can't deny that fact, yet you are religious.


----------



## Katzndogz

TemplarKormac said:


> I think some of you are missing the point of my message, while some of you are absolutely on point. The fact there are those of you that you see each other as an enemy or ally, friend or foe, is proof positive that freedom of opinion no longer exists.



Not even close.  It is quite possible to evaluate democrats as an enemy independently by independent observation and evaluation of facts and events.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Moonglow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> A path to citizenship is appealing to 'emotions?'  This is why I sometimes really can't take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like a path around our immigration and enforcement law. This is why I don't take you seriously. Period. Why have laws if you're going to pass laws that circumvent other laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'We'll send criminals home first': Obama administration prepares to deport record numbers of illegal immigrants
> 
> Government is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said
> 
> 
> Read more: Obama prepares to deport record numbers of illegal immigrants | Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most distressing is Bush's assertion that deportation of millions of illegal aliens is "impossible."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Is it "Impossible" to Deport Illegal Aliens, Mr. Bush?
Click to expand...


No.

New documents reveal Obama administration 'cooking the books' to achieve record deportation numbers | The Daily Caller


----------



## Moonglow

TemplarKormac said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So. From one sentence that is from an intro paragraph. you try to explain your myopic feeble attempt at writing a serious epitaph of your_ one horse town _mind espousing your epiphany?
> 
> Why waste digital space and just re post or bump one of your other tired threads that you attempt to cement your id and ego upon us? You must have a bounty of free time in your attempts to post your tired redundant reiteration rhetoric you so bore us with.
> 
> Me thinks your time may be better spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your trash. Negged.
Click to expand...


Ty for negging me for my opinion, those things you say do not exist.


----------



## ClosedCaption

TheOldSchool said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
Click to expand...


this is the same reheated bullshit he's trying to spoonfeed people.

Basically it goes like this: Blacks and other Minorities vote dem because gosh darnnit they dont know any better.

They have to think this way or be forced to answer other hard questions like:  If they know better what could be deterring these groups from the GOP?


----------



## Vox

bendog said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid references to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demographics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post is funny. Actually, Obamacare derives its roots from Hillarycare, or what was known as the Health Security Act of 1993. This was going on way before Romney stepped foot in the governor's office. And yes, as with Obamacare, it is redistributionist. I find it quite ironic that liberals like you are now trashing the ACA, after blindly supporting it before. What happened?
> 
> At any rate, if the Republicans were ignoring minorities, why are you guys exploiting them? You appeal their emotional side, not their rational side. Why do you continue to play the race card when none of your other ideals appeal to the American people? Last time I checked, Old Rocks, Republican speechwriters don't look to a random political messageboard for their material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A path to citizenship is appealing to 'emotions?'  This is why I sometimes really can't take you seriously.
Click to expand...


yes, it is.

because there is already a path to citizenship. It is called current immigration law


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kosh said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
Click to expand...


I've never heard a single Democrat deny that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Can you name whoever you're talking about?


----------



## Moonglow

Katzndogz said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of you are missing the point of my message, while some of you are absolutely on point. The fact there are those of you that you see each other as an enemy or ally, friend or foe, is proof positive that freedom of opinion no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.  It is quite possible to evaluate democrats as an enemy independently by independent observation and evaluation of facts and events.
Click to expand...


And from your abilities at that element of evaluation shows that your bias over rules your judgement capability.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Moonglow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So. From one sentence that is from an intro paragraph. you try to explain your myopic feeble attempt at writing a serious epitaph of your_ one horse town _mind espousing your epiphany?
> 
> Why waste digital space and just re post or bump one of your other tired threads that you attempt to cement your id and ego upon us? You must have a bounty of free time in your attempts to post your tired redundant reiteration rhetoric you so bore us with.
> 
> Me thinks your time may be better spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your trash. Negged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ty for negging me for my opinion, those things you say do not exist.
Click to expand...


That was an opinion? Try harder.


----------



## Moonglow

NYcarbineer said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never heard a single Democrat deny that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Can you name whoever you're talking about?
Click to expand...


The dead straw men of yester-year.


----------



## Kosh

Wry Catcher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the far left seems to be the worst of the lot and far more dangerous and damaging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked this too many times and you've never been able (and likely can't)  define what you mean by the "far left".  It appears the OP is spot on, you're one of those who simply parrots what you've been told.  Maybe you're too poorly educated to actually think - it is a learned skill - and that's sad.
Click to expand...


It has been defined and you never answered any of my questions.

You are upset because you don't want to admit that you are far left.


----------



## Vox

Moonglow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, Templar.  Thoughts (which is what opinions are) are the only things we truly own and control in our lives, and minus advanced, intensive brainwashing techniques, no one can "program" us to think anything.
> 
> I think it's the individuals who are to blame.  People are lazy, and it's so damned easy to just kneejerk to a fast, easy answer without thinking it through that dogma becomes really appealing.
> 
> Do political parties take advantage of this human tendency?  Sure.  Are they responsible for creating it?  Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our political parties take advantage of the "your team, my team" mentality. It isn't about facts, but about who is and who isn't on your team. Free thought goes right out of the window. Are they responsible for creating thought? No, but they are quite capable of influencing it. Thus where I get the notion that people are 'programmed' into supporting one side over another. The cognitive dissonance both parties encourage is quite serious. The absence of free thought is almost nowhere to be seen. While we do own our thoughts, we are capable of allowing who and what may influence them or occupy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion also brainwashes people, you can't deny that fact, yet you are religious.
Click to expand...


lewtwing political agenda is even worse than religion as it brainwashes to believe in the policies which are AGAINST the average human being, yet you and others are fanatical leftards believers.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sometimes I don't know why I bother trying. The back and forth in this thread is a prime example of what my message speaks about, it proves my point precisely. I try for the faith that there are people out there able to resist the urge to cease being a team player, but a free thinker.


----------



## Kosh

NYcarbineer said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never heard a single Democrat deny that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Can you name whoever you're talking about?
Click to expand...


And the far left propaganda continues.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> I think some of you are missing the point of my message, while some of you are absolutely on point. The fact there are those of you that you see each other as an enemy or ally, friend or foe, is proof positive that freedom of opinion no longer exists.



No.  I think that depends on WHY we see each other that way.  I see people as friend or foe based on how much thought they apply to the positions they hold.  I have no more patience with someone who has stumbled into agreeing with me and has no idea how to explain WHY they believe that way than I do with someone who's disagreeing with me and can't articulate THAT position.

Admittedly, I tend to find more mindless kneejerks on the left than I do on the right, but I am saddened to report how much more common it's becoming across the board.


----------



## Kosh

Moonglow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, Templar.  Thoughts (which is what opinions are) are the only things we truly own and control in our lives, and minus advanced, intensive brainwashing techniques, no one can "program" us to think anything.
> 
> I think it's the individuals who are to blame.  People are lazy, and it's so damned easy to just kneejerk to a fast, easy answer without thinking it through that dogma becomes really appealing.
> 
> Do political parties take advantage of this human tendency?  Sure.  Are they responsible for creating it?  Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our political parties take advantage of the "your team, my team" mentality. It isn't about facts, but about who is and who isn't on your team. Free thought goes right out of the window. Are they responsible for creating thought? No, but they are quite capable of influencing it. Thus where I get the notion that people are 'programmed' into supporting one side over another. The cognitive dissonance both parties encourage is quite serious. The absence of free thought is almost nowhere to be seen. While we do own our thoughts, we are capable of allowing who and what may influence them or occupy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion also brainwashes people, you can't deny that fact, yet you are religious.
Click to expand...


Just like how the far left posters blaze into a thread and spout far left religious propaganda about anything that they perceive to be to the right of them.


----------



## thanatos144

If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.



And you all want to know why I left the Republican Party? ^^^


----------



## Vox

bendog said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid references to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demographics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post is funny. Actually, Obamacare derives its roots from Hillarycare, or what was known as the Health Security Act of 1993. This was going on way before Romney stepped foot in the governor's office. And yes, as with Obamacare, it is redistributionist. I find it quite ironic that liberals like you are now trashing the ACA, after blindly supporting it before. What happened?
> 
> At any rate, if the Republicans were ignoring minorities, why are you guys exploiting them? You appeal their emotional side, not their rational side. Why do you continue to play the race card when none of your other ideals appeal to the American people? Last time I checked, Old Rocks, Republican speechwriters don't look to a random political messageboard for their material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A path to citizenship is appealing to 'emotions?'  This is why I sometimes really can't take you seriously.
Click to expand...


there is already a path to citizenship. it is called current immigration law.


----------



## Kosh

thanatos144 said:


> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.



No! And that is the difference. Many that are registered as (R)'s will still speak out against their own, it is rarity to see the far left do this.


----------



## Kosh

Vox said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is funny. Actually, Obamacare derives its roots from Hillarycare, or what was known as the Health Security Act of 1993. This was going on way before Romney stepped foot in the governor's office. And yes, as with Obamacare, it is redistributionist. I find it quite ironic that liberals like you are now trashing the ACA, after blindly supporting it before. What happened?
> 
> At any rate, if the Republicans were ignoring minorities, why are you guys exploiting them? You appeal their emotional side, not their rational side. Why do you continue to play the race card when none of your other ideals appeal to the American people? Last time I checked, Old Rocks, Republican speechwriters don't look to a random political messageboard for their material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A path to citizenship is appealing to 'emotions?'  This is why I sometimes really can't take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is already a path to citizenship. it is called current immigration law.
Click to expand...


Why can we not just enforce the laws on the books?

What groups are preventing this?


----------



## Katzndogz

Moonglow said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of you are missing the point of my message, while some of you are absolutely on point. The fact there are those of you that you see each other as an enemy or ally, friend or foe, is proof positive that freedom of opinion no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.  It is quite possible to evaluate democrats as an enemy independently by independent observation and evaluation of facts and events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And from your abilities at that element of evaluation shows that your bias over rules your judgement capability.
Click to expand...


How did I get that bias?    I used to be a democrat.  My parents were new deal democrats.  I was raised in abject poverty and should be the first to embrace democrat redistribution policies.   I recognized how destructive democrat policies are, and a bias grew from that.  Now I have a bias.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Kosh said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> A path to citizenship is appealing to 'emotions?'  This is why I sometimes really can't take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is already a path to citizenship. it is called current immigration law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can we not just enforce the laws on the books?
> 
> What groups are preventing this?
Click to expand...


Both. Neither wants to do anything to secure the border. But THIS IS OFF TOPIC.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.



Did I say anything about who you should vote for? Where in my OP did I make such an insinuation?


----------



## Vox

Kosh said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> A path to citizenship is appealing to 'emotions?'  This is why I sometimes really can't take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is already a path to citizenship. it is called current immigration law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can we not just enforce the laws on the books?
> 
> What groups are preventing this?
Click to expand...


leftard brainwashing machine.
'to distract people from the REAL issues - how the policies of the last 5 years almost killed the economy, are killing jobs and are increasing the economic misery of the middle class, while enriching the masters of the dimocraps - the 1%


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, Templar.  Thoughts (which is what opinions are) are the only things we truly own and control in our lives, and minus advanced, intensive brainwashing techniques, no one can "program" us to think anything.
> 
> I think it's the individuals who are to blame.  People are lazy, and it's so damned easy to just kneejerk to a fast, easy answer without thinking it through that dogma becomes really appealing.
> 
> Do political parties take advantage of this human tendency?  Sure.  Are they responsible for creating it?  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our political parties take advantage of the "your team, my team" mentality. It isn't about facts, but about who is and who isn't on your team. Free thought goes right out of the window. Are they responsible for creating thought? No, but they are quite capable of influencing it. Thus where I get the notion that people are 'programmed' into supporting one side over another. The cognitive dissonance both parties encourage is quite serious. The absence of free thought is almost nowhere to be seen. While we do own our thoughts, we are capable of allowing who and what may influence them or occupy them.
Click to expand...


Well, I hate to say it, Templar, but I view the "Parties are evil!  Get rid of parties to fix things!" as just another kneejerk, don't-need-to-think dogma.  Parties are not the problem, nor will it ever be possible to excise from human nature the tendency to choose up sides and form teams.  The solution, if there is one, must be at the _individual _level.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you all want to know why I left the Republican Party? ^^^
Click to expand...

You left because they didn't vote how you wanted and like a bitch you went home and cried that they just were not being nice to you! What is it with you people today? How fucking stupid are you to think if you vote for a democrat or republican you gave up your personal opinion? Guess what in the adult world you dont always get what you want. I sure as hell didnt want the weak will pussies in the republican leadership we have now. But I sure as fuck didnt take my ball home and cry because I seem to have lost that battle. No instead like adult I rolled with the punches and fought back like I am. Nothing is given to you. You also dont make changes at national level you do that at local. We are the united STATES of America meaning we are a collection of many governments not just one monolithic monster.


----------



## thanatos144

Kosh said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No! And that is the difference. Many that are registered as (R)'s will still speak out against their own, it is rarity to see the far left do this.
Click to expand...


Where does it look like I was arguing with you on that point?


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything about who you should vote for? Where in my OP did I make such an insinuation?
Click to expand...


Really? The fact that you said being a republican means giving up your freedom of opinion does that!


----------



## TemplarKormac

Moonglow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So. From one sentence that is from an intro paragraph. you try to explain your myopic feeble attempt at writing a serious epitaph of your_ one horse town _mind espousing your epiphany?
> 
> Why waste digital space and just re post or bump one of your other tired threads that you attempt to cement your id and ego upon us? You must have a bounty of free time in your attempts to post your tired redundant reiteration rhetoric you so bore us with.
> 
> Me thinks your time may be better spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your trash. Negged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ty for negging me for my opinion, those things you say do not exist.
Click to expand...


You're welcome. And when you get around to addressing the full body of my OP, let me know. Attacking my character is not an opinion, it is self projection on your part, Moonie. I will be the judge of what I do with my time, not you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything about who you should vote for? Where in my OP did I make such an insinuation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The fact that you said being a republican means giving up your freedom of opinion does that!
Click to expand...


That is not at all what I said! Be a Republican, I don't care, thanatos. What I would hope you did was know where your limits are, when free thought is being subjugated by party politics! 

Come on. Only two or three people chose to post thoughtfully. Fine, I take it as a badge of honor that it this thread struck so many nerves. Such responses from both sides are indicative of a guilty conscience.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No! And that is the difference. Many that are registered as (R)'s will still speak out against their own, it is rarity to see the far left do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it look like I was arguing with you on that point?
Click to expand...


You are being rather combative actually.


----------



## Vox

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you all want to know why I left the Republican Party? ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left because they didn't vote how you wanted and like a bitch you went home and cried that they just were not being nice to you! *What is it with you people today? How fucking stupid are you to think if you vote for a democrat or republican you gave up your personal opinion? G*uess what in the adult world you dont always get what you want. I sure as hell didnt want the weak will pussies in the republican leadership we have now. But I sure as fuck didnt take my ball home and cry because I seem to have lost that battle. No instead like adult I rolled with the punches and fought back like I am. Nothing is given to you. You also dont make changes at national level you do that at local. We are the united STATES of America meaning we are a collection of many governments not just one monolithic monster.
Click to expand...


people are also being brainwashed in that direction - to make sure conservatives do not vote, as neither party suits them.
It is a subtle propaganda deceit and it is aimed at people who would otherwise vote republican as to assure that the leftard scum is voted off.

there are going to be puppet candidates from the fake libertarians or "real" conservatives or any other manufactured "right" paid by the extreme left - exactly like it happened in Virginia.
The stupid republican establishment also plays to the leftards agenda - by desire of "punishing" the ones inside the party who do not want to agree with the establishment ( as they withdrew ALL COSTS form Virginia races).

There is a proverb in my native language - if Good Lord wants to punish someone - he takes away their thinking abilities.
That is what is going on both with republican party establishment and the conservative electorate - they are punishing each other - ones by keeping tight their money, others - by sitting out the elections.
In the result the dimocrap scum is winning and both the RINO establishment and the conservative electorate have to abide by the extreme leftard policies which they basically are helping to install by their own stupidity.


----------



## Kosh

TemplarKormac said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is already a path to citizenship. it is called current immigration law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can we not just enforce the laws on the books?
> 
> What groups are preventing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both. Neither wants to do anything to secure the border. But THIS IS OFF TOPIC.
Click to expand...


Not exactly!

Both have their Dogma about this, However Bush did get something passed to reinforce the borders and it went no where due to far left groups that tied it up in court. So the money that was allocated for the project was taken up by legal fees.


----------



## SwimExpert

A free opinion is not granted, it is taken.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything about who you should vote for? Where in my OP did I make such an insinuation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The fact that you said being a republican means giving up your freedom of opinion does that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not at all what I said! Be a Republican, I don't care, thanatos. What I would hope you did was know where your limits are, when free thought is being subjugated by party politics!
> 
> Come on. Only two or three people chose to post thoughtfully. Fine, I take it as a badge of honor that it this thread struck so many nerves. Such responses from both sides are indicative of a guilty conscience.
Click to expand...

Do you think they are sending men in suits flashing your memories away? No one is subjugating my opinion! The whole republicans are evil argument is old and fucking overdone. I get tired of it. You dont get to sit there and act superior to anyone because you refuse to make a choice. I like you man your a good bean but sometimes you guys say the fucking dumbest things.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you all want to know why I left the Republican Party? ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left because they didn't vote how you wanted and like a bitch you went home and cried that they just were not being nice to you! What is it with you people today? How fucking stupid are you to think if you vote for a democrat or republican you gave up your personal opinion? Guess what in the adult world you dont always get what you want. I sure as hell didnt want the weak will pussies in the republican leadership we have now. But I sure as fuck didnt take my ball home and cry because I seem to have lost that battle. No instead like adult I rolled with the punches and fought back like I am. Nothing is given to you. You also dont make changes at national level you do that at local. We are the united STATES of America meaning we are a collection of many governments not just one monolithic monster.
Click to expand...


Nope, it was mainly the hostility people like you spewed forth at others who share different perceptions of conservatism. And what battle did I lose exactly? I choose my own battles, I don't have them fought for me. Unlike you I am not an unwary foot soldier. My sword is my own. 

Answer me this. Where in my OP did I tell you who to vote for? Before we go any further, can you answer that for me? Vote for who you want, I merely ask that you vote wisely, think it through. As for your opinions, all I ask is that you don't have them fed to you by your party; that you form them from your thoughts and not from the mouths of political talking heads in the establishment. 

Pipe down, will ya?


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you all want to know why I left the Republican Party? ^^^
Click to expand...


In all honesty, my friend, I can't say I've ever asked or cared.  I think making decisions based on an automatic horror of the possibility of groupthink is about as bad as making them based on an acceptance of it.

I'm a registered Republican in order to vote in primaries.  I chose that party's primaries to participate in because its platform is closest to my personal beliefs, and its candidates are more likely to vote in accordance with my personal beliefs.  The party itself, and the people who run it or hold office in it, I tend to view as a bunch of gormless, ham-handed, dickless wonders who couldn't competently run a campaign for high school student body president, and they frustrate me to no end.

You gotta work with what you have to work with.  Registering as an Independent would accomplish exactly nothing, except to make a meaningless show so that I could prattle to people what a "free thinker" I am . . . and a true free thinker wouldn't care if people believed it or not.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The fact that you said being a republican means giving up your freedom of opinion does that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not at all what I said! Be a Republican, I don't care, thanatos. What I would hope you did was know where your limits are, when free thought is being subjugated by party politics!
> 
> Come on. Only two or three people chose to post thoughtfully. Fine, I take it as a badge of honor that it this thread struck so many nerves. Such responses from both sides are indicative of a guilty conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think they are sending men in suits flashing your memories away? No one is subjugating my opinion! The whole republicans are evil argument is old and fucking overdone. I get tired of it. You dont get to sit there and act superior to anyone because you refuse to make a choice. I like you man your a good bean but sometimes you guys say the fucking dumbest things.
Click to expand...


No. I see people doing that to themselves. What gives you the right to sit there and make prevaricated assumptions about me? I am superior to nobody. And where did I say 'Republicans are evil?"  You're a cool guy thanatos, but seriously, you're reading things into my OP that truly aren't there. My choice isn't contingent on whether my party gives it to me or not. That isn't for them to decide.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you all want to know why I left the Republican Party? ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> You left because they didn't vote how you wanted and like a bitch you went home and cried that they just were not being nice to you! What is it with you people today? How fucking stupid are you to think if you vote for a democrat or republican you gave up your personal opinion? Guess what in the adult world you dont always get what you want. I sure as hell didnt want the weak will pussies in the republican leadership we have now. But I sure as fuck didnt take my ball home and cry because I seem to have lost that battle. No instead like adult I rolled with the punches and fought back like I am. Nothing is given to you. You also dont make changes at national level you do that at local. We are the united STATES of America meaning we are a collection of many governments not just one monolithic monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it was mainly the hostility people like you spewed forth at others who share different perceptions of conservatism. And what battle did I lose exactly? I choose my own battles, I don't have them fought for me. Unlike you I am not an unwary foot soldier. My sword is my own.
> 
> Answer me this. Where in my OP did I tell you who to vote for? Before we go any further, can you answer that for me? Vote for who you want, I merely ask that you vote wisely, think it through. As for your opinions, all I ask is that you don't have them fed to you by your party; that you form them from your thoughts and not from the mouths of political talking heads in the establishment.
> 
> Pipe down, will ya?
Click to expand...

Different perceptions? Listen you ass you called me and every other republican a fucking mindless robot and you think I am the one being hostile? No I am the one calling your bullshit for what it is! You sit there and say "I dont follow any party aren't I just superior to all you?"


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not at all what I said! Be a Republican, I don't care, thanatos. What I would hope you did was know where your limits are, when free thought is being subjugated by party politics!
> 
> Come on. Only two or three people chose to post thoughtfully. Fine, I take it as a badge of honor that it this thread struck so many nerves. Such responses from both sides are indicative of a guilty conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think they are sending men in suits flashing your memories away? No one is subjugating my opinion! The whole republicans are evil argument is old and fucking overdone. I get tired of it. You dont get to sit there and act superior to anyone because you refuse to make a choice. I like you man your a good bean but sometimes you guys say the fucking dumbest things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I see people doing that to themselves. What gives you the right to sit there and make prevaricated assumptions about me? I am superior to nobody. And where did I say 'Republicans are evil?"  You're a cool guy thanatos, but seriously, you're reading things into my OP that truly aren't there. My choice isn't contingent on whether my party gives it to me or not. That isn't for them to decide.
Click to expand...


It isn't assumption it is a down the line straight computation based on your posts. NO ONE tell you you have to be democrat or republican yet you seem to say that anyone who is is a mindless fool. Your arrogance is astounding.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I vote republican does not mean I have given up my fucking personal opinions. Only idiots who think they are independents think this. Get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you all want to know why I left the Republican Party? ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all honesty, my friend, I can't say I've ever asked or cared.  I think making decisions based on an automatic horror of the possibility of groupthink is about as bad as making them based on an acceptance of it.
> 
> I'm a registered Republican in order to vote in primaries.  I chose that party's primaries to participate in because its platform is closest to my personal beliefs, and its candidates are more likely to vote in accordance with my personal beliefs.  The party itself, and the people who run it or hold office in it, I tend to view as a bunch of gormless, ham-handed, dickless wonders who couldn't competently run a campaign for high school student body president, and they frustrate me to no end.
> 
> You gotta work with what you have to work with.  Registering as an Independent would accomplish exactly nothing, except to make a meaningless show so that I could prattle to people what a "free thinker" I am . . . and a true free thinker wouldn't care if people believed it or not.
Click to expand...


Actually I am a registered Republican still. But I am Libertarian. It's that I get tired of people willfully surrendering their principles in order to support one party or another. It's mind numbing the pointless sacrifices people make for that. Let it be known, I am not telling anyone who or what to support, but at some point, a person ought to realize when their thoughts and opinions are not their own. 

I don't expect anyone to care about my political transformations, I mentioned it simply for those who recall me telling them why I left the Republican party in principle. It would be extremely unwise to register as an Libertarian in my state, I wouldn't be able to vote in either primary.

Frankly, I don't care what anyone thinks, other than that they should hold on to their thoughts and opinions without having them dictated to them by someone else. Perhaps it is a foreign concept to some...


----------



## thanatos144

Lets look at this in another way. I vote republican because to vote democrat means to vote against everything I believe in where as the republican platform doesn't. The republican leadership is fucked up. FUBAR is a more apt description. Replacing them with better republicans is what I am striving for. Yet never have I ever said that because I am republican that all must think as I do. Those young who stupidly think they are better then all of us because they dont follow a party piss me off. The arrogance is sickening and truthfully they have no right to be so. They have done NOTHING to warrant the high opinion of themselves.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you all want to know why I left the Republican Party? ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all honesty, my friend, I can't say I've ever asked or cared.  I think making decisions based on an automatic horror of the possibility of groupthink is about as bad as making them based on an acceptance of it.
> 
> I'm a registered Republican in order to vote in primaries.  I chose that party's primaries to participate in because its platform is closest to my personal beliefs, and its candidates are more likely to vote in accordance with my personal beliefs.  The party itself, and the people who run it or hold office in it, I tend to view as a bunch of gormless, ham-handed, dickless wonders who couldn't competently run a campaign for high school student body president, and they frustrate me to no end.
> 
> You gotta work with what you have to work with.  Registering as an Independent would accomplish exactly nothing, except to make a meaningless show so that I could prattle to people what a "free thinker" I am . . . and a true free thinker wouldn't care if people believed it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I am a registered Republican still. But I am Libertarian. It's that I get tired of people willfully surrendering their principles in order to support one party or another. It's mind numbing the pointless sacrifices people make for that. Let it be known, I am not telling anyone who or what to support, but at some point, a person ought to realize when their thoughts and opinions are not their own.
> 
> I don't expect anyone to care about my political transformations, I mentioned it simply for those who recall me telling them why I left the Republican party in principle. It would be extremely unwise to register as an Libertarian in my state, I wouldn't be able to vote in either primary.
> 
> Frankly, I don't care what anyone thinks, other than that they should hold on to their thoughts and opinions without having them dictated to them by someone else. Perhaps it is a foreign concept to some...
Click to expand...

So in other words you dont have the courage of your convictions.....


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think they are sending men in suits flashing your memories away? No one is subjugating my opinion! The whole republicans are evil argument is old and fucking overdone. I get tired of it. You dont get to sit there and act superior to anyone because you refuse to make a choice. I like you man your a good bean but sometimes you guys say the fucking dumbest things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I see people doing that to themselves. What gives you the right to sit there and make prevaricated assumptions about me? I am superior to nobody. And where did I say 'Republicans are evil?"  You're a cool guy thanatos, but seriously, you're reading things into my OP that truly aren't there. My choice isn't contingent on whether my party gives it to me or not. That isn't for them to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't assumption it is a down the line straight computation based on your posts. NO ONE tell you you have to be democrat or republican yet you seem to say that anyone who is is a mindless fool. Your arrogance is astounding.
Click to expand...


Arrogance? Where have I assumed to be such? Stop computing and start reading. Anyone who simply falls in line with their party's ideals is indeed mindless and devoid of free and independent thought. I cannot speak for you or anyone else, all I did was simply leave it up to you to ponder. 

I'm utterly confused by what I have seen and read here in this thread today.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all honesty, my friend, I can't say I've ever asked or cared.  I think making decisions based on an automatic horror of the possibility of groupthink is about as bad as making them based on an acceptance of it.
> 
> I'm a registered Republican in order to vote in primaries.  I chose that party's primaries to participate in because its platform is closest to my personal beliefs, and its candidates are more likely to vote in accordance with my personal beliefs.  The party itself, and the people who run it or hold office in it, I tend to view as a bunch of gormless, ham-handed, dickless wonders who couldn't competently run a campaign for high school student body president, and they frustrate me to no end.
> 
> You gotta work with what you have to work with.  Registering as an Independent would accomplish exactly nothing, except to make a meaningless show so that I could prattle to people what a "free thinker" I am . . . and a true free thinker wouldn't care if people believed it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am a registered Republican still. But I am Libertarian. It's that I get tired of people willfully surrendering their principles in order to support one party or another. It's mind numbing the pointless sacrifices people make for that. Let it be known, I am not telling anyone who or what to support, but at some point, a person ought to realize when their thoughts and opinions are not their own.
> 
> I don't expect anyone to care about my political transformations, I mentioned it simply for those who recall me telling them why I left the Republican party in principle. It would be extremely unwise to register as an Libertarian in my state, I wouldn't be able to vote in either primary.
> 
> Frankly, I don't care what anyone thinks, other than that they should hold on to their thoughts and opinions without having them dictated to them by someone else. Perhaps it is a foreign concept to some...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words you dont have the courage of your convictions.....
Click to expand...


Actually I do. That is why I disabused myself from two party politics. I don't measure courage or conviction by political ideology. I won't have my courage or convictions tempered by clueless establishmentarians at the head of a party I once supported. Absolutely not.


----------



## Moonglow

disabused-.
persuade (someone) that an idea or belief is mistaken.

So you did it to yourself, but you still have convictions which reflect your political opinion. That reflection is of the GOP.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I see people doing that to themselves. What gives you the right to sit there and make prevaricated assumptions about me? I am superior to nobody. And where did I say 'Republicans are evil?"  You're a cool guy thanatos, but seriously, you're reading things into my OP that truly aren't there. My choice isn't contingent on whether my party gives it to me or not. That isn't for them to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't assumption it is a down the line straight computation based on your posts. NO ONE tell you you have to be democrat or republican yet you seem to say that anyone who is is a mindless fool. Your arrogance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arrogance? Where have I assumed to be such? Stop computing and start reading. Anyone who simply falls in line with their party's ideals is indeed mindless and devoid of free and independent thought. I cannot speak for you or anyone else, all I did was simply leave it up to you to ponder.
> 
> I'm utterly confused by what I have seen and read here in this thread today.
Click to expand...


You still trying to back walk your own OP? Your the one who said you cant have freedom of opinion if you are in one of the two parties. That is arrogance.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> Lets look at this in another way. I vote republican because to vote democrat means to vote against everything I believe in where as the republican platform doesn't. The republican leadership is fucked up. FUBAR is a more apt description. Replacing them with better republicans is what I am striving for. Yet never have I ever said that because I am republican that all must think as I do. Those young who stupidly think they are better then all of us because they dont follow a party piss me off. The arrogance is sickening and truthfully they have no right to be so. They have done NOTHING to warrant the high opinion of themselves.



So you choose to continue this vicious cycle? "Better Republicans"? "Better Democrats"? 

_I HAVE NO HIGH OPINION OF MYSELF, THANATOS_, bottom line. I was raised to be humble, not arrogant or narcissistic. But I do resent other older adults thinking that their experience grants them unrivaled wisdom and knowledge they don't actually possess. 

There is no place in my heart for egotism, and that's final, sir. Things have gone on in my life that taught me to get rid of such a mindset.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am a registered Republican still. But I am Libertarian. It's that I get tired of people willfully surrendering their principles in order to support one party or another. It's mind numbing the pointless sacrifices people make for that. Let it be known, I am not telling anyone who or what to support, but at some point, a person ought to realize when their thoughts and opinions are not their own.
> 
> I don't expect anyone to care about my political transformations, I mentioned it simply for those who recall me telling them why I left the Republican party in principle. It would be extremely unwise to register as an Libertarian in my state, I wouldn't be able to vote in either primary.
> 
> Frankly, I don't care what anyone thinks, other than that they should hold on to their thoughts and opinions without having them dictated to them by someone else. Perhaps it is a foreign concept to some...
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words you dont have the courage of your convictions.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do. That is why I disabused myself from two party politics. I don't measure courage or conviction by political ideology. I won't have my courage or convictions tempered by clueless establishmentarians at the head of a party I once supported. Absolutely not.
Click to expand...

Really? Then register as a libertarian . Otherwise you are nothing more then a fence sitter trying to act better then everyone yet refusing to actually make a choice. Like being married and sleeping around.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't assumption it is a down the line straight computation based on your posts. NO ONE tell you you have to be democrat or republican yet you seem to say that anyone who is is a mindless fool. Your arrogance is astounding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arrogance? Where have I assumed to be such? Stop computing and start reading. Anyone who simply falls in line with their party's ideals is indeed mindless and devoid of free and independent thought. I cannot speak for you or anyone else, all I did was simply leave it up to you to ponder.
> 
> I'm utterly confused by what I have seen and read here in this thread today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still trying to back walk your own OP? Your the one who said you cant have freedom of opinion if you are in one of the two parties. That is arrogance.
Click to expand...


You can be a member of whatever party you want, thanatos! All I ask is that you don't let them think for you!

What part of that is so hard for you to understand?


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at this in another way. I vote republican because to vote democrat means to vote against everything I believe in where as the republican platform doesn't. The republican leadership is fucked up. FUBAR is a more apt description. Replacing them with better republicans is what I am striving for. Yet never have I ever said that because I am republican that all must think as I do. Those young who stupidly think they are better then all of us because they dont follow a party piss me off. The arrogance is sickening and truthfully they have no right to be so. They have done NOTHING to warrant the high opinion of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you choose to continue this vicious cycle? "Better Republicans"? "Better Democrats"?
> 
> _I HAVE NO HIGH OPINION OF MYSELF, THANATOS_, bottom line. I was raised to be humble, not arrogant or narcissistic. But I do resent other older adults thinking that their experience grants them unrivaled wisdom and knowledge they don't actually possess.
> 
> There is no place in my heart for egotism, and that's final, sir. Things have gone on in my life that taught me to get rid of such a mindset.
Click to expand...


This entire thread is nothing but your narcissistic need to tell us all you are better then us because you are no longer a republican! Let me clue you in on something. We dont fucking care. We just dont like being insulted by you.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrogance? Where have I assumed to be such? Stop computing and start reading. Anyone who simply falls in line with their party's ideals is indeed mindless and devoid of free and independent thought. I cannot speak for you or anyone else, all I did was simply leave it up to you to ponder.
> 
> I'm utterly confused by what I have seen and read here in this thread today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still trying to back walk your own OP? Your the one who said you cant have freedom of opinion if you are in one of the two parties. That is arrogance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be a member of whatever party you want, thanatos! All I ask is that you don't let them think for you!
> 
> What part of that is so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...


Who the fuck do you think you are talking to? Have you never read my posts about the poor? Trust me I piss off most republicans and all libertarians. Republicans all do their own thinking. Because we dont think like you doesn't mean we are mindless. We are not progressive democrats. We dont blindly ignore whats in front of us. We are just adult enough to understand we have to work to fix it. We dont leave because it gets hard.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words you dont have the courage of your convictions.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do. That is why I disabused myself from two party politics. I don't measure courage or conviction by political ideology. I won't have my courage or convictions tempered by clueless establishmentarians at the head of a party I once supported. Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then register as a libertarian . Otherwise you are nothing more then a fence sitter trying to act better then everyone yet refusing to actually make a choice. Like being married and sleeping around.
Click to expand...


I will not have my choices dictated to me, thanatos. If I registered as a Libertarian in Georgia, I would deny myself the ability to vote in either Republican or Democratic primaries. Why do you continue to insist that I 'act better than everyone else'? Mister, I live poverty, I have an elderly grandmother that requires almost constant attention, I've gone through a lot in my own life that taught me that such things as egotism and arrogance ill serves me in the grand scheme of things. 

You think you can sit there on your perch and prejudge me? How dare you?


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do. That is why I disabused myself from two party politics. I don't measure courage or conviction by political ideology. I won't have my courage or convictions tempered by clueless establishmentarians at the head of a party I once supported. Absolutely not.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then register as a libertarian . Otherwise you are nothing more then a fence sitter trying to act better then everyone yet refusing to actually make a choice. Like being married and sleeping around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will not have my choices dictated to me, thanatos. If I registered as a Libertarian in Georgia, I would deny myself the ability to vote in either Republican or Democratic primaries. Why do you continue to insist that I 'act better than everyone else'? Mister, I live poverty, I have an elderly grandmother that requires almost constant attention, I've gone through a lot in my own life that taught me that such things as egotism and arrogance ill serves me in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> You think you can sit there on your perch and prejudge me? How dare you?
Click to expand...

Since you are not a republican or democrat why do you think you have the right to vote in their primaries?


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still trying to back walk your own OP? Your the one who said you cant have freedom of opinion if you are in one of the two parties. That is arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be a member of whatever party you want, thanatos! All I ask is that you don't let them think for you!
> 
> What part of that is so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck do you think you are talking to? Have you never read my posts about the poor? Trust me I piss off most republicans and all libertarians. Republicans all do their own thinking. Because we dont think like you doesn't mean we are mindless. We are not progressive democrats. We dont blindly ignore whats in front of us. We are just adult enough to understand we have to work to fix it. We dont leave because it gets hard.
Click to expand...


I'm talking to you, who else would I be talking to? That's 'who the fuck I'm talking to'.

I read many posts on this board, and I rarely see any of yours to know what you are for and against. How can 'all Republicans think for themselves' when you just lambasted me for being a libertarian? Hmm? Do they teach you to vilify someone who doesn't think like you?

This overt hostility that either party demonstrates towards differentiating opinions is what I was trying to address. I'm not asking anyone to think in any certain way, I ask that they simply think for themselves. Period. 

Your responses to me were quod erat demonstrandum (QED), consistently proving my point. If I'm not one of you, or think like you, I am hated and vilified by you. They justify my reasoning of why I separated myself from two party politics. I am not arrogant nor do I run from a challenge. I choose to take on greater challenges that people such as yourself are unwilling to confront, namely the cognitive dissonance presented in America by partisan politics and political parties. 

I will not entrap myself in a predetermined set of ideals set forth by my own party. I share Republican ideals, Democratic ideals, and Libertarian ideals. I align myself with conservatism because that is simply how I was raised.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be a member of whatever party you want, thanatos! All I ask is that you don't let them think for you!
> 
> What part of that is so hard for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck do you think you are talking to? Have you never read my posts about the poor? Trust me I piss off most republicans and all libertarians. Republicans all do their own thinking. Because we dont think like you doesn't mean we are mindless. We are not progressive democrats. We dont blindly ignore whats in front of us. We are just adult enough to understand we have to work to fix it. We dont leave because it gets hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking to you, who else would I be talking to? That's 'who the fuck I'm talking to'.
> 
> I read many posts on this board, and I rarely see any of yours to know what you are for and against. How can 'all Republicans think for themselves' when you just lambasted me for being a libertarian? Hmm? Do they teach you to vilify someone who doesn't think like you?
> 
> This overt hostility that either party demonstrates towards differentiating opinions is what I was trying to address. I'm not asking anyone to think in any certain way, I ask that they simply think for themselves. Period.
> 
> Your responses to me were quod erat demonstrandum (QED), consistently proving my point. If I'm not one of you, or think like you, I am hated and vilified by you. They justify my reasoning of why I separated myself from two party politics. I am not arrogant nor do I run from a challenge. I choose to take on greater challenges that people such as yourself are unwilling to confront, namely the cognitive dissonance presented in America by partisan politics and political parties.
> 
> I will not entrap myself in a predetermined set of ideals set forth by my own party. I share Republican ideals, Democratic ideals, and Libertarian ideals. I align myself with conservatism because that is simply how I was raised.
Click to expand...

Lambast you for being libertarian? No lambast you for being a arrogant punk who called all republicans mindless sheep? You bet your ass. If you didn't want your idiotic OP  debunked then you shouldn't have posted it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at this in another way. I vote republican because to vote democrat means to vote against everything I believe in where as the republican platform doesn't. The republican leadership is fucked up. FUBAR is a more apt description. Replacing them with better republicans is what I am striving for. Yet never have I ever said that because I am republican that all must think as I do. Those young who stupidly think they are better then all of us because they dont follow a party piss me off. The arrogance is sickening and truthfully they have no right to be so. They have done NOTHING to warrant the high opinion of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you choose to continue this vicious cycle? "Better Republicans"? "Better Democrats"?
> 
> _I HAVE NO HIGH OPINION OF MYSELF, THANATOS_, bottom line. I was raised to be humble, not arrogant or narcissistic. But I do resent other older adults thinking that their experience grants them unrivaled wisdom and knowledge they don't actually possess.
> 
> There is no place in my heart for egotism, and that's final, sir. Things have gone on in my life that taught me to get rid of such a mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entire thread is nothing but your narcissistic need to tell us all you are better then us because you are no longer a republican! Let me clue you in on something. We dont fucking care. We just dont like being insulted by you.
Click to expand...


Aren't you being paranoid? How was I 'insulting' you? Hmm? You took immediate offense to my OP without even addressing it. "This is a load of shit" you said. You talk about not running from what gets hard, but apparently it was too hard for you to fashion a respectful response! 

I am not better than anyone, never insisted that I am. This is why, right here why I became disenchanted with political parties. People like you presuming to know everything there is to know, dismissing everything else. Such naivete is patently disturbing. 

And in the future, should you feel the overwhelming need 'not to care,' please hit the back button on your browser next time. Spare me your warrantless tirades about how I am supposedly narcissistic, arrogant or whatever else I might be. Keep your prejudgements to yourself. 

This thread was innocuous to start, but somehow people like you chose to blow it out of context.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck do you think you are talking to? Have you never read my posts about the poor? Trust me I piss off most republicans and all libertarians. Republicans all do their own thinking. Because we dont think like you doesn't mean we are mindless. We are not progressive democrats. We dont blindly ignore whats in front of us. We are just adult enough to understand we have to work to fix it. We dont leave because it gets hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking to you, who else would I be talking to? That's 'who the fuck I'm talking to'.
> 
> I read many posts on this board, and I rarely see any of yours to know what you are for and against. How can 'all Republicans think for themselves' when you just lambasted me for being a libertarian? Hmm? Do they teach you to vilify someone who doesn't think like you?
> 
> This overt hostility that either party demonstrates towards differentiating opinions is what I was trying to address. I'm not asking anyone to think in any certain way, I ask that they simply think for themselves. Period.
> 
> Your responses to me were quod erat demonstrandum (QED), consistently proving my point. If I'm not one of you, or think like you, I am hated and vilified by you. They justify my reasoning of why I separated myself from two party politics. I am not arrogant nor do I run from a challenge. I choose to take on greater challenges that people such as yourself are unwilling to confront, namely the cognitive dissonance presented in America by partisan politics and political parties.
> 
> I will not entrap myself in a predetermined set of ideals set forth by my own party. I share Republican ideals, Democratic ideals, and Libertarian ideals. I align myself with conservatism because that is simply how I was raised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lambast you for being libertarian? No lambast you for being a arrogant punk who called all republicans mindless sheep? You bet your ass. If you didn't want your idiotic OP  debunked then you shouldn't have posted it.
Click to expand...


I was unaware my OP was debunked... 

There you go telling me what to post. Once again QED. Thinking you have a monopoly on opinion. 

How immature. And to think there are fully grown adults like you out there who insist on talking down to people and telling people what they should post, what opinions they should posit and what party they should belong to. As for assuming I called Republicans "mindless sheep": it must be from a guilty conscience from which you speak. I never implied that you were anything of the sort. Clearly you read into my thread things that weren't there. It was not my intent to upset anyone or anything, just to provoke GASP, thought. 

Remove the tin foil hat for once in your life and actually take the time to read my thread, not simply press the quote button and issue forth a knee jerk response. Don't preach to me, mister.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you choose to continue this vicious cycle? "Better Republicans"? "Better Democrats"?
> 
> _I HAVE NO HIGH OPINION OF MYSELF, THANATOS_, bottom line. I was raised to be humble, not arrogant or narcissistic. But I do resent other older adults thinking that their experience grants them unrivaled wisdom and knowledge they don't actually possess.
> 
> There is no place in my heart for egotism, and that's final, sir. Things have gone on in my life that taught me to get rid of such a mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire thread is nothing but your narcissistic need to tell us all you are better then us because you are no longer a republican! Let me clue you in on something. We dont fucking care. We just dont like being insulted by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you being paranoid? How was I 'insulting' you? Hmm? You took immediate offense to my OP without even addressing it. "This is a load of shit" you said. You talk about not running from what gets hard, but apparently it was too hard for you to fashion a respectful response!
> 
> I am not better than anyone, never insisted that I am. This is why, right here why I became disenchanted with political parties. People like you presuming to know everything there is to know, dismissing everything else. Such naivete is patently disturbing.
> 
> And in the future, should you feel the overwhelming need 'not to care,' please hit the back button on your browser next time. Spare me your warrantless tirades about how I am supposedly narcissistic, arrogant or whatever else I might be. Keep your prejudgements to yourself.
> 
> This thread was innocuous to start, but somehow people like you chose to blow it out of context.
Click to expand...


You cant change what already happened. You called all who are republicans or democrats mindless, Sheep, without freedom of opinion. You are so arrogant that you think we are so stupid we dont see what your OP is? No you just got caught being a asshole and are trying to backwalk it. By the way when are you going to answer about what gives you the right to vote in republican primaries if you dont want to be a republican? This has to be one of the most underhanded things I have heard from a libertarian.


----------



## Katzndogz

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't assumption it is a down the line straight computation based on your posts. NO ONE tell you you have to be democrat or republican yet you seem to say that anyone who is is a mindless fool. Your arrogance is astounding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arrogance? Where have I assumed to be such? Stop computing and start reading. Anyone who simply falls in line with their party's ideals is indeed mindless and devoid of free and independent thought. I cannot speak for you or anyone else, all I did was simply leave it up to you to ponder.
> 
> I'm utterly confused by what I have seen and read here in this thread today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still trying to back walk your own OP? Your the one who said you cant have freedom of opinion if you are in one of the two parties. That is arrogance.
Click to expand...


It comes down to a very liberal concept that has enjoyed some success over the years.   It's "agree with me or you don't think for yourself".


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking to you, who else would I be talking to? That's 'who the fuck I'm talking to'.
> 
> I read many posts on this board, and I rarely see any of yours to know what you are for and against. How can 'all Republicans think for themselves' when you just lambasted me for being a libertarian? Hmm? Do they teach you to vilify someone who doesn't think like you?
> 
> This overt hostility that either party demonstrates towards differentiating opinions is what I was trying to address. I'm not asking anyone to think in any certain way, I ask that they simply think for themselves. Period.
> 
> Your responses to me were quod erat demonstrandum (QED), consistently proving my point. If I'm not one of you, or think like you, I am hated and vilified by you. They justify my reasoning of why I separated myself from two party politics. I am not arrogant nor do I run from a challenge. I choose to take on greater challenges that people such as yourself are unwilling to confront, namely the cognitive dissonance presented in America by partisan politics and political parties.
> 
> I will not entrap myself in a predetermined set of ideals set forth by my own party. I share Republican ideals, Democratic ideals, and Libertarian ideals. I align myself with conservatism because that is simply how I was raised.
> 
> 
> 
> Lambast you for being libertarian? No lambast you for being a arrogant punk who called all republicans mindless sheep? You bet your ass. If you didn't want your idiotic OP  debunked then you shouldn't have posted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was unaware my OP was debunked...
> 
> There you go telling me what to post. Once again QED. Thinking you have a monopoly on opinion.
> 
> How immature. And to think there are fully grown adults like you out there who insist on talking down to people and telling people what they should post. As for assuming I called Republicans "mindless sheep": it must be from a guilty conscience from which you speak. I never implied that you were anything of the sort. Clearly you read into my thread things that weren't there. It was not my intent to upset anyone or anything, just to provoke GASP, thought.
> 
> Remove the tin foil hat for once in your life and actually take the time to read my thread, not simply press the quote button and issue forth a knee jerk response to it. Don't preach to me, mister.
Click to expand...

who told you what to post? Listen crybaby if you thought people like me would just mindlessly let you insult us as stupid robots then that says more about your intelligence then ours. You posted your OP now you have to deal with the consequences of your arrogant stupidity.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Katzndogz said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrogance? Where have I assumed to be such? Stop computing and start reading. Anyone who simply falls in line with their party's ideals is indeed mindless and devoid of free and independent thought. I cannot speak for you or anyone else, all I did was simply leave it up to you to ponder.
> 
> I'm utterly confused by what I have seen and read here in this thread today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still trying to back walk your own OP? Your the one who said you cant have freedom of opinion if you are in one of the two parties. That is arrogance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It comes down to a very liberal concept that has enjoyed some success over the years.   It's "agree with me or you don't think for yourself".
Click to expand...


Um yeah, like you were doing in the Nelson Mandela threads.


----------



## thanatos144

Katzndogz said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrogance? Where have I assumed to be such? Stop computing and start reading. Anyone who simply falls in line with their party's ideals is indeed mindless and devoid of free and independent thought. I cannot speak for you or anyone else, all I did was simply leave it up to you to ponder.
> 
> I'm utterly confused by what I have seen and read here in this thread today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still trying to back walk your own OP? Your the one who said you cant have freedom of opinion if you are in one of the two parties. That is arrogance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It comes down to a very liberal concept that has enjoyed some success over the years.   It's "agree with me or you don't think for yourself".
Click to expand...

It is sad.... Is it how they are taught in schools now?


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still trying to back walk your own OP? Your the one who said you cant have freedom of opinion if you are in one of the two parties. That is arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes down to a very liberal concept that has enjoyed some success over the years.   It's "agree with me or you don't think for yourself".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um yeah, like you were doing in the Nelson Mandela threads.
Click to expand...


Was he calling Mandela a socialist who hated the USA? Because thats truth. Or was he saying that he was messiah like? Because thats not the truth.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lambast you for being libertarian? No lambast you for being a arrogant punk who called all republicans mindless sheep? You bet your ass. If you didn't want your idiotic OP  debunked then you shouldn't have posted it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware my OP was debunked...
> 
> There you go telling me what to post. Once again QED. Thinking you have a monopoly on opinion.
> 
> How immature. And to think there are fully grown adults like you out there who insist on talking down to people and telling people what they should post. As for assuming I called Republicans "mindless sheep": it must be from a guilty conscience from which you speak. I never implied that you were anything of the sort. Clearly you read into my thread things that weren't there. It was not my intent to upset anyone or anything, just to provoke GASP, thought.
> 
> Remove the tin foil hat for once in your life and actually take the time to read my thread, not simply press the quote button and issue forth a knee jerk response to it. Don't preach to me, mister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who told you what the post? Listen crybaby if you thought people like me would just mindlessly let you insult us as stupid robots then that says more about your intelligence then ours. You posted your OP now you have to deal with the consequences of your arrogant stupidity.
Click to expand...


"If you don't want your idiotic OP debunked, don't post it" or something to that extent.

All you are doing is calling me names, not even defending your points of view. You are all the meanwhile proving my point. Your violent reactions to such a harmless thread is proof.  You seem to think the only opinion that matters is yours. 

Crybaby, arrogant, stupid, idiotic, punk... whetever. Why do you insist on issuing pejoratives every other word to make a point? If you speak with other people on this board, they will disprove your preconceived notions about me quite handily.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It comes down to a very liberal concept that has enjoyed some success over the years.   It's "agree with me or you don't think for yourself".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um yeah, like you were doing in the Nelson Mandela threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was he calling Mandela a socialist who hated the USA? Because thats truth. Or was he saying that he was messiah like? Because thats not the truth.
Click to expand...


Exactly. If he believed Mendela anything contrary to your assertion, he is automatically wrong. Really? That statement epitomizes everything I pointed out about political parties.

Now, what did Mandela do that made him a Communist/Socialist? Katz never could answer that question, nor could bigreb or deltex. What about his policies made him anything of the sort? Is he a messiah? No, he is a man. Did he fight for the cause of freedom and equality? Yes he did. Regardless of what you think, he was a liberator, a freedom fighter.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware my OP was debunked...
> 
> There you go telling me what to post. Once again QED. Thinking you have a monopoly on opinion.
> 
> How immature. And to think there are fully grown adults like you out there who insist on talking down to people and telling people what they should post. As for assuming I called Republicans "mindless sheep": it must be from a guilty conscience from which you speak. I never implied that you were anything of the sort. Clearly you read into my thread things that weren't there. It was not my intent to upset anyone or anything, just to provoke GASP, thought.
> 
> Remove the tin foil hat for once in your life and actually take the time to read my thread, not simply press the quote button and issue forth a knee jerk response to it. Don't preach to me, mister.
> 
> 
> 
> who told you what the post? Listen crybaby if you thought people like me would just mindlessly let you insult us as stupid robots then that says more about your intelligence then ours. You posted your OP now you have to deal with the consequences of your arrogant stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "If you don't want your idiotic OP debunked, don't post it" or something to that extent.
> 
> All you are doing is calling me names, not even defending your points of view. You are all the meanwhile proving my point. Your violent reactions to such a harmless thread is proof.  You seem to think the only opinion that matters is yours.
> 
> Crybaby, arrogant, stupid, idiotic, punk... whetever. Why do you insist on issuing pejoratives every other word to make a point? If you speak with other people on this board, they will disprove your preconceived notions about me quite handily.
Click to expand...


awww is my language hurting your feelings? Grow a set nancy. Fact is you insulted all republicans with a stupid arrogant full of shit blanket statement of which I thoroughly debunk by showing you how very fucking much I have my freedom of opinion. You may now thank me for disabusing you of your ignorance.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um yeah, like you were doing in the Nelson Mandela threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was he calling Mandela a socialist who hated the USA? Because thats truth. Or was he saying that he was messiah like? Because thats not the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. If he believed Mendela anything contrary to your assertion, he is automatically wrong. Really? That statement epitomizes everything I pointed out about political parties.
> 
> Now, what did Mandela do that made him a Communist/Socialist? Katz never could answer that question, nor could bigreb or deltex. What about his policies made him anything of the sort? Is he a messiah? No, he is a man. Did he fight for the cause of freedom and equality? Yes he did. Regardless of what you think, he was a liberator, a freedom fighter.
Click to expand...

I said truth not opinion. Mandela was a socialist. He didn't hide the fact. He also hated the USA for its capitalist system he though as unfair to the little people. Also fact that he didn't hide. Did you think think liberals salivated over him because he was a black man imprisoned for his political views on Apartheid? We are talking about Democrats here man. They created nationalized racism.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kosh said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard a single Democrat deny that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Can you name whoever you're talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the far left propaganda continues.
Click to expand...


You're accusing the DNC of denying that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Who are you referring to?  Or are you the one whose lying?

Name ONE Democrat who ever publicly denied that conservative southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act.

One.  And link to them saying so.


----------



## thanatos144

NYcarbineer said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard a single Democrat deny that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Can you name whoever you're talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the far left propaganda continues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're accusing the DNC of denying that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Who are you referring to?  Or are you the one whose lying?
> 
> Name ONE Democrat who ever publicly denied that conservative southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> One.  And link to them saying so.
Click to expand...

Dummy you do know that one of your heroes JFK voted against it right? As well as Johnson before he was president....And Gore Senior and Rockefeller and most of the democrats of that time....It wasn't a conservative thing it was a democrat thing.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> who told you what the post? Listen crybaby if you thought people like me would just mindlessly let you insult us as stupid robots then that says more about your intelligence then ours. You posted your OP now you have to deal with the consequences of your arrogant stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If you don't want your idiotic OP debunked, don't post it" or something to that extent.
> 
> All you are doing is calling me names, not even defending your points of view. You are all the meanwhile proving my point. Your violent reactions to such a harmless thread is proof.  You seem to think the only opinion that matters is yours.
> 
> Crybaby, arrogant, stupid, idiotic, punk... whetever. Why do you insist on issuing pejoratives every other word to make a point? If you speak with other people on this board, they will disprove your preconceived notions about me quite handily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> awww is my language hurting your feelings? Grow a set nancy. Fact is you insulted all republicans with a stupid arrogant full of shit blanket statement of which I thoroughly debunk by showing you how very fucking much I have my freedom of opinion. You may now thank me for disabusing you of your ignorance.
Click to expand...


You're the one who needs to 'grow a pair' thanatos. Without even making one point in regards to my thread, you took immediate offense to it. You flew off the handle, didn't show me one iota of respect or consideration to the points I was making. And I'm the one who needs to grow a pair? You didn't "thoroughly debunk" anything, except the fact that partisan political ideology is incompatible with free thinking. You clearly demonstrated that by assuming to speak for every Republican in existence. Thank you, sincerely.

You were slapped with a clean dose of reality. I can't help it if it gave you a case of verbal diarrhea. I suggest you deal with it. John Boehner may wish to know that you assumed the role of speaking for the entire party, since you now seem to think you know what's good for all of Republicanism/Conservatism.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you don't want your idiotic OP debunked, don't post it" or something to that extent.
> 
> All you are doing is calling me names, not even defending your points of view. You are all the meanwhile proving my point. Your violent reactions to such a harmless thread is proof.  You seem to think the only opinion that matters is yours.
> 
> Crybaby, arrogant, stupid, idiotic, punk... whetever. Why do you insist on issuing pejoratives every other word to make a point? If you speak with other people on this board, they will disprove your preconceived notions about me quite handily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awww is my language hurting your feelings? Grow a set nancy. Fact is you insulted all republicans with a stupid arrogant full of shit blanket statement of which I thoroughly debunk by showing you how very fucking much I have my freedom of opinion. You may now thank me for disabusing you of your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who needs to 'grow a pair' thanatos. Without even making one point in regards to my thread, you took immediate offense to it. You flew off the handle, didn't show me one iota of respect or consideration to the points I was making. And I'm the one who needs to grow a pair? You didn't "thoroughly debunk" anything, except the fact that partisan political ideology is incompatible with free thinking. You clearly demonstrated that by assuming to speak for every Republican in existence. Thank you, sincerely.
> 
> You were slapped with a clean dose of reality. I can't help it if it gave you a case of verbal diarrhea. I suggest you deal with it. John Boehner may wish to know that you assumed the role of speaking for the entire party, since you now seem to think you know what's good for all of Republicanism/Conservatism.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you just to young to know you get respect when you earn it. You dont earn it by insulting people with a arrogant ignorant statement that a group of people are mindless because they are republicans. No what you get is your ass handed to you for your arrogant ignorant statement. By the way stupid Boener doesn't speak for republicans I leave that up to the individual. You know the people you pretend to be so your can dishonestly vote in their primaries.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was he calling Mandela a socialist who hated the USA? Because thats truth. Or was he saying that he was messiah like? Because thats not the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. If he believed Mendela anything contrary to your assertion, he is automatically wrong. Really? That statement epitomizes everything I pointed out about political parties.
> 
> Now, what did Mandela do that made him a Communist/Socialist? Katz never could answer that question, nor could bigreb or deltex. What about his policies made him anything of the sort? Is he a messiah? No, he is a man. Did he fight for the cause of freedom and equality? Yes he did. Regardless of what you think, he was a liberator, a freedom fighter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said truth not opinion. Mandela was a socialist. He didn't hide the fact. He also hated the USA for its capitalist system he though as unfair to the little people. Also fact that he didn't hide. Did you think think liberals salivated over him because he was a black man imprisoned for his political views on Apartheid? We are talking about Democrats here man. They created nationalized racism.
Click to expand...


Racism has existed way before the Democrats or even America existed. To imply that Democrats or anyone else 'created nationalized racism' is wrong. However, the Democrats did give birth to the KKK in the mid 1860's. They didn't invent racism, they did more to further it for the next hundred years.

As for Mandela, he was a boon for the South African economy. He did nothing to it that resembled socialism/communism. For all of four years, there was nothing but prosperity. He had a sense of loyalty that was to a fault at times. Does that take away from what he did? Well according to some it does.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. If he believed Mendela anything contrary to your assertion, he is automatically wrong. Really? That statement epitomizes everything I pointed out about political parties.
> 
> Now, what did Mandela do that made him a Communist/Socialist? Katz never could answer that question, nor could bigreb or deltex. What about his policies made him anything of the sort? Is he a messiah? No, he is a man. Did he fight for the cause of freedom and equality? Yes he did. Regardless of what you think, he was a liberator, a freedom fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> I said truth not opinion. Mandela was a socialist. He didn't hide the fact. He also hated the USA for its capitalist system he though as unfair to the little people. Also fact that he didn't hide. Did you think think liberals salivated over him because he was a black man imprisoned for his political views on Apartheid? We are talking about Democrats here man. They created nationalized racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism has existed way before the Democrats or even America existed. To imply that Democrats or anyone else 'created nationalized racism' is wrong. However, the Democrats did give birth to the KKK in the mid 1860's. They didn't invent racism, they did more to further it for the next hundred years.
> 
> As for Mandela, he was a boon for the South African economy. He did nothing to it that resembled socialism/communism. For all of four years, there was nothing but prosperity. He had a sense of loyalty that was to a fault at times. Does that take away from what he did? Well according to some it does.
Click to expand...


He didnt have the power to change the economy of south Africa. I liken him to being like Obama but without a democrat ran congress.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> awww is my language hurting your feelings? Grow a set nancy. Fact is you insulted all republicans with a stupid arrogant full of shit blanket statement of which I thoroughly debunk by showing you how very fucking much I have my freedom of opinion. You may now thank me for disabusing you of your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who needs to 'grow a pair' thanatos. Without even making one point in regards to my thread, you took immediate offense to it. You flew off the handle, didn't show me one iota of respect or consideration to the points I was making. And I'm the one who needs to grow a pair? You didn't "thoroughly debunk" anything, except the fact that partisan political ideology is incompatible with free thinking. You clearly demonstrated that by assuming to speak for every Republican in existence. Thank you, sincerely.
> 
> You were slapped with a clean dose of reality. I can't help it if it gave you a case of verbal diarrhea. I suggest you deal with it. John Boehner may wish to know that you assumed the role of speaking for the entire party, since you now seem to think you know what's good for all of Republicanism/Conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you just to young to know you get respect when you earn it. You dont earn it by insulting people with a arrogant ignorant statement that a group of people are mindless because they are republicans. No what you get is your ass handed to you for your arrogant ignorant statement. By the way stupid Boener doesn't speak for republicans I leave that up to the individual. You know the people you pretend to be so your can dishonestly vote in their primaries.
Click to expand...


For the sixth time, thanatos. Where did I insult you? How did I insult you? When did I insult you? Can you please quote me?  Oh and I do know all about respect. It's as simple as this: when you give it, I'll return it. It's that simple. One other thing. Why should I render myself useless in the Democratic process, simply because people like you hate libertarians? I can vote for whomever I wish, without the likes of you accusing me of being "dishonest." How uncouth of you. 

Surely if you let the individual think for themselves, you wouldn't be accusing me of being dishonest, arrogant, narcissistic and etc. If you truly cared about the intellectual freedom of an individual, why would you contend that I "insulted ALL Republicans"? Seriously, let them determine if I insulted them or not. Simple enough, right?


----------



## Ernie S.

Old Rocks said:


> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid referances to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demograpics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.



It's funny that you consider obama center left. Anyone who makes that claim would be better suited to life in Cuba.
ACA was an alternative to a single payer plan in all forms, be it Massachusetts, the Heritage Plan or obamacare.
If you actually think the GOP supported it, tell me who proposed it during the Bush admin.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who needs to 'grow a pair' thanatos. Without even making one point in regards to my thread, you took immediate offense to it. You flew off the handle, didn't show me one iota of respect or consideration to the points I was making. And I'm the one who needs to grow a pair? You didn't "thoroughly debunk" anything, except the fact that partisan political ideology is incompatible with free thinking. You clearly demonstrated that by assuming to speak for every Republican in existence. Thank you, sincerely.
> 
> You were slapped with a clean dose of reality. I can't help it if it gave you a case of verbal diarrhea. I suggest you deal with it. John Boehner may wish to know that you assumed the role of speaking for the entire party, since you now seem to think you know what's good for all of Republicanism/Conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you just to young to know you get respect when you earn it. You dont earn it by insulting people with a arrogant ignorant statement that a group of people are mindless because they are republicans. No what you get is your ass handed to you for your arrogant ignorant statement. By the way stupid Boener doesn't speak for republicans I leave that up to the individual. You know the people you pretend to be so your can dishonestly vote in their primaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the sixth time, thanatos. Where did I insult you? How did I insult you? When did I insult you? Can you please quote me?  Oh and I do know all about respect. It's as simple as this: when you give it, I'll return it. It's that simple. One other thing. Why should I render myself useless in the Democratic process, simply because people like you hate libertarians? I can vote for whomever I wish, without the likes of you accusing me of being "dishonest." How uncouth of you.
> 
> Surely if you let the individual think for themselves, you would be accusing me of being dishonest, arrogant, narcissistic and etc. If you truly cared about the intellectual freedom of an individual, why would you contend that I "insulted ALL Republicans"? Seriously, let them determine if I insulted them or not. Simple enough, right?
Click to expand...

In your arrogance you dont see telling people they give up their opinion when they become a republican as a insult? I cant help you if your so ignorant. Now excuse me I have to get ready for work .


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you just to young to know you get respect when you earn it. You dont earn it by insulting people with a arrogant ignorant statement that a group of people are mindless because they are republicans. No what you get is your ass handed to you for your arrogant ignorant statement. By the way stupid Boener doesn't speak for republicans I leave that up to the individual. You know the people you pretend to be so your can dishonestly vote in their primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the sixth time, thanatos. Where did I insult you? How did I insult you? When did I insult you? Can you please quote me?  Oh and I do know all about respect. It's as simple as this: when you give it, I'll return it. It's that simple. One other thing. Why should I render myself useless in the Democratic process, simply because people like you hate libertarians? I can vote for whomever I wish, without the likes of you accusing me of being "dishonest." How uncouth of you.
> 
> Surely if you let the individual think for themselves, you would be accusing me of being dishonest, arrogant, narcissistic and etc. If you truly cared about the intellectual freedom of an individual, why would you contend that I "insulted ALL Republicans"? Seriously, let them determine if I insulted them or not. Simple enough, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your arrogance you dont see telling people they give up their opinion when they become a republican as a insult? I cant help you if your so ignorant. Now excuse me I have to get ready for work .
Click to expand...


You aren't answering my question, thanatos. Why are you running away? Perhaps what you need to do is help yourself, not me. When you follow your own party so blindly that their propaganda becomes your opinion, then yes, I can see why you would think that would be an insult. I'm simply urging you to resist the temptation to let your party think for you, while sharing in a common ideal/goal.

I cannot help your lack of understanding on this subject. Perhaps you should address your own ignorance before lecturing me on mine.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the sixth time, thanatos. Where did I insult you? How did I insult you? When did I insult you? Can you please quote me?  Oh and I do know all about respect. It's as simple as this: when you give it, I'll return it. It's that simple. One other thing. Why should I render myself useless in the Democratic process, simply because people like you hate libertarians? I can vote for whomever I wish, without the likes of you accusing me of being "dishonest." How uncouth of you.
> 
> Surely if you let the individual think for themselves, you would be accusing me of being dishonest, arrogant, narcissistic and etc. If you truly cared about the intellectual freedom of an individual, why would you contend that I "insulted ALL Republicans"? Seriously, let them determine if I insulted them or not. Simple enough, right?
> 
> 
> 
> In your arrogance you dont see telling people they give up their opinion when they become a republican as a insult? I cant help you if your so ignorant. Now excuse me I have to get ready for work .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't answering my question, thanatos. Why are you running away? Perhaps what you need to do is help yourself, not me. When you follow your own party so blindly that their propaganda becomes your opinion, then yes, I can see why you would think that would be an insult. I'm simply urging you to resist the temptation to let your party think for you, while sharing in a common ideal/goal.
> 
> I cannot help your lack of understanding on this subject. Perhaps you should address your own ignorance before lecturing me on mine.
Click to expand...


I am NOT running away I am getting ready to go to my work it's called having a job. The insult was you saying we were all mindless idiots with no opinion because we were Republicans that is a fact you cannot hide from

tapatalk post


----------



## NYcarbineer

thanatos144 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the far left propaganda continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're accusing the DNC of denying that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Who are you referring to?  Or are you the one whose lying?
> 
> Name ONE Democrat who ever publicly denied that conservative southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> One.  And link to them saying so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dummy you do know that one of your heroes JFK voted against it right? As well as Johnson before he was president....And Gore Senior and Rockefeller and most of the democrats of that time....It wasn't a conservative thing it was a democrat thing.
Click to expand...


Unbelievably, I am forced to inform you that JFK was dead in 1964.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your arrogance you dont see telling people they give up their opinion when they become a republican as a insult? I cant help you if your so ignorant. Now excuse me I have to get ready for work .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't answering my question, thanatos. Why are you running away? Perhaps what you need to do is help yourself, not me. When you follow your own party so blindly that their propaganda becomes your opinion, then yes, I can see why you would think that would be an insult. I'm simply urging you to resist the temptation to let your party think for you, while sharing in a common ideal/goal.
> 
> I cannot help your lack of understanding on this subject. Perhaps you should address your own ignorance before lecturing me on mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am NOT running away I am getting ready to go to my work it's called having a job. The insult was you saying we were all mindless idiots with no opinion because we were Republicans that is a fact you cannot hide from
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Well don't let the fact that you were wrong hinder you from doing your job effectively.  I still fail to see where I called you a "mindless idiot." Did you perchance read my OP, or did you speedread through it?  You insist upon something I never once did. 

Stop making shit up, thanatos. Perhaps when you get back home from work you will be in a more objective frame of mind.


----------



## TemplarKormac

NYcarbineer said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're accusing the DNC of denying that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Who are you referring to?  Or are you the one whose lying?
> 
> Name ONE Democrat who ever publicly denied that conservative southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> One.  And link to them saying so.
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy you do know that one of your heroes JFK voted against it right? As well as Johnson before he was president....And Gore Senior and Rockefeller and most of the democrats of that time....It wasn't a conservative thing it was a democrat thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unbelievably, I am forced to inform you that JFK was dead in 1964.
Click to expand...


Perhaps both of you are unaware of his vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957? He voted against it. 

"Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhowers 1957 Civil Rights Act. "

John Kennedy and Civil Rights


----------



## NYcarbineer

thanatos144 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the far left propaganda continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're accusing the DNC of denying that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Who are you referring to?  Or are you the one whose lying?
> 
> Name ONE Democrat who ever publicly denied that conservative southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> One.  And link to them saying so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dummy you do know that one of your heroes JFK voted against it right? As well as Johnson before he was president....And Gore Senior and Rockefeller and most of the democrats of that time....It wasn't a conservative thing it was a democrat thing.
Click to expand...


If it was a Democrat thing to vote against it how come 2/3rds of Democrats voted for it?

Explain that, genius.


----------



## NYcarbineer

TemplarKormac said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy you do know that one of your heroes JFK voted against it right? As well as Johnson before he was president....And Gore Senior and Rockefeller and most of the democrats of that time....It wasn't a conservative thing it was a democrat thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievably, I am forced to inform you that JFK was dead in 1964.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps both of you are unaware of his vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957? He voted against it.
> 
> "Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhowers 1957 Civil Rights Act. "
> 
> John Kennedy and Civil Rights
Click to expand...


So?  That wasn't the topic.  

2/3rds of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Do you want to dispute that?


----------



## TemplarKormac

NYcarbineer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievably, I am forced to inform you that JFK was dead in 1964.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps both of you are unaware of his vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957? He voted against it.
> 
> "Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhower&#8217;s 1957 Civil Rights Act. "
> 
> John Kennedy and Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  That wasn't the topic.
> 
> 2/3rds of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Do you want to dispute that?
Click to expand...


No.

It is the topic. Although he did not vote for the 1964 version due to his being six feet under, he voted against a similar bill in 1957, which means while thanatos got the year wrong, Kennedy did vote against Civil Rights legislation.

In fact you would be correct in saying that they approved by 2/3rds majority. But then again, you have to wonder why a Democrat plus the Southern Bloc tried to filibuster it/vote against it. Actually, Republicans approved of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by greater margins than the Democrats. Would you care to dispute that?


----------



## NYcarbineer

TemplarKormac said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps both of you are unaware of his vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957? He voted against it.
> 
> "Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhowers 1957 Civil Rights Act. "
> 
> John Kennedy and Civil Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  That wasn't the topic.
> 
> 2/3rds of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Do you want to dispute that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> It is the topic. Although he did not vote for the 1964 version due to his being six feet under, he voted against a similar bill in 1957, which means while thanatos got the year wrong, Kennedy did vote against Civil Rights legislation.
> 
> In fact you would be correct in saying that they approved by 2/3rds majority. But then again, you have to wonder why a Democrat plus the Southern Bloc tried to filibuster it/vote against it. Actually, Republicans approved of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by greater margins than the Democrats. Would you care to dispute that?
Click to expand...


lol, I think it's pretty funny that you start a thread complaining about party-line hackery, and a few hours later you're engaging in it with as much zeal as ever.

The Southern wing of the Democratic Party in 1964 was the CONSERVATIVE wing.  They voted against the civil rights act of 1964 because they were CONSERVATIVES.  That's all there is to it.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps both of you are unaware of his vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957? He voted against it.
> 
> "Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhowers 1957 Civil Rights Act. "
> 
> John Kennedy and Civil Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  That wasn't the topic.
> 
> 2/3rds of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Do you want to dispute that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> It is the topic. Although he did not vote for the 1964 version due to his being six feet under, he voted against a similar bill in 1957, which means while thanatos got the year wrong, Kennedy did vote against Civil Rights legislation.
> 
> In fact you would be correct in saying that they approved by 2/3rds majority. But then again, you have to wonder why a Democrat plus the Southern Bloc tried to filibuster it/vote against it. Actually, Republicans approved of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by greater margins than the Democrats. Would you care to dispute that?
Click to expand...


No I didn't because the bill was the same bill just a different year. 

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

NYcarbineer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  That wasn't the topic.
> 
> 2/3rds of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Do you want to dispute that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> It is the topic. Although he did not vote for the 1964 version due to his being six feet under, he voted against a similar bill in 1957, which means while thanatos got the year wrong, Kennedy did vote against Civil Rights legislation.
> 
> In fact you would be correct in saying that they approved by 2/3rds majority. But then again, you have to wonder why a Democrat plus the Southern Bloc tried to filibuster it/vote against it. Actually, Republicans approved of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by greater margins than the Democrats. Would you care to dispute that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, I think it's pretty funny that you start a thread complaining about party-line hackery, and a few hours later you're engaging in it with as much zeal as ever.
> 
> The Southern wing of the Democratic Party in 1964 was the CONSERVATIVE wing.  They voted against the civil rights act of 1964 because they were CONSERVATIVES.  That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...


You keep saying conservative it wasn't conservative it was a Democrat get used to it is Democrat the hell slaves first Democrat sec rated the KKK is Democrats that voted against civil rights until a pass in spite of them

tapatalk post


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fact that so many of you are crying that you don't have it, means you have it.

Now what you have to learn is (1) no one cares what you think a lot of the time and (2) just because you opine does not mean you are immune to counter opinion.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't answering my question, thanatos. Why are you running away? Perhaps what you need to do is help yourself, not me. When you follow your own party so blindly that their propaganda becomes your opinion, then yes, I can see why you would think that would be an insult. I'm simply urging you to resist the temptation to let your party think for you, while sharing in a common ideal/goal.
> 
> I cannot help your lack of understanding on this subject. Perhaps you should address your own ignorance before lecturing me on mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am NOT running away I am getting ready to go to my work it's called having a job. The insult was you saying we were all mindless idiots with no opinion because we were Republicans that is a fact you cannot hide from
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well don't let the fact that you were wrong hinder you from doing your job effectively.  I still fail to see where I called you a "mindless idiot." Did you perchance read my OP, or did you speedread through it?  You insist upon something I never once did.
> 
> Stop making shit up, thanatos. Perhaps when you get back home from work you will be in a more objective frame of mind.
Click to expand...


Mindless idiot is not what you said that's what it means to give away your personal opinion 

tapatalk post


----------



## Pogo

Kosh said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
Click to expand...


Clearly you are part and parcel of exactly the problem the OP calls out.  Your vision is one-way.  You have no mirror and apparently what you want is a one-party state.

To hell with that.



Kosh said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion also brainwashes people, you can't deny that fact, yet you are religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like how the far left posters blaze into a thread and spout far left religious propaganda about anything that they perceive to be to the right of them.
Click to expand...


The record shows that you (YOU) were the first to blaze in and immediately tilt the thread to one side.  Repeatedly.


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh I don't thing the TPM is the fringe of the gop.  I think elements like Freedom works has used them to primary out, and intimidate other, gop pols who want to broaden the party's scope from simply being about protecting the 1%'s econ interests to the detriment of the rest.  And THAT is a losing strategy ultimately, and probably how we ended up with a black man named Barak Obama.
> 
> The TPM is just a reaction to the BushII policiies and the gop's willingness to abandon basic gop principles of limited govt ... and lip service to less deficits ... though reality requires me to notice the deficits tend to be smaller pre reagan, and with Sllick.  And amazingly they are looking at getting smaller again.
> 
> Sure there are extremes at either end of both parties. But you have to be blind to not notice the dem left wing has been remarkably consistent compared to the party that wants to invade Iran to usher in the Rapture and simultaneously grasp limited govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except it is ALWAYS the dimocrap party which protects the 1% the most and takes care of the 1% FIRST and FOREMOST - on the expense of the middle class. their last most preposterous achievement in the direction is obamacare crap.
> always.
> what they lie to the dumbos like yourself meanwhile - does not matter.
> you will eat up ANY leftard propaganda lie withought thinking.
Click to expand...


-- and you're another one.

You two just don't get it.  Let's use an illustration that I know you've seen before:

yammer yammer yammeryammer dimocraps yammer yammer leftards yammeryammeryammer liburruls yammer yammer yammer..

Enough already.


----------



## thanatos144

Pogo said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are part and parcel of exactly the problem the OP calls out.  Your vision is one-way.  You have no mirror and apparently what you want is a one-party state.
> 
> To hell with that.
Click to expand...


Where do you get that?  Just because he is correct does not mean he wants one party rule. 

tapatalk post


----------



## thereisnospoon

TemplarKormac said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the far left seems to be the worst of the lot and far more dangerous and damaging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is the case with the far right, too. To say that one side is worse than the other is just the party talking. That's exactly why I wrote this OP. Political party influence has taken away the freedom to think, to choose, and to express without reprisal.
Click to expand...


The problem is even moderately libs have been programmed to believe ANY right wing speech is extremist.
In fact with the help of the main stream media, liberals have been able to create a narrative on this. That is anything relating to the GOP or conservatism is viewed as "far right wing"...


----------



## NYcarbineer

thanatos144 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> It is the topic. Although he did not vote for the 1964 version due to his being six feet under, he voted against a similar bill in 1957, which means while thanatos got the year wrong, Kennedy did vote against Civil Rights legislation.
> 
> In fact you would be correct in saying that they approved by 2/3rds majority. But then again, you have to wonder why a Democrat plus the Southern Bloc tried to filibuster it/vote against it. Actually, Republicans approved of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by greater margins than the Democrats. Would you care to dispute that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, I think it's pretty funny that you start a thread complaining about party-line hackery, and a few hours later you're engaging in it with as much zeal as ever.
> 
> The Southern wing of the Democratic Party in 1964 was the CONSERVATIVE wing.  They voted against the civil rights act of 1964 because they were CONSERVATIVES.  That's all there is to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying conservative it wasn't conservative it was a Democrat get used to it is Democrat the hell slaves first Democrat sec rated the KKK is Democrats that voted against civil rights until a pass in spite of them
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


They were conservatives.  Period.  Where did you ever get the foolish notion that a Democrat couldn't be a conservative?


----------



## occupied

TemplarKormac said:


> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, no there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.



Not buying it. If we had a republican president right now you would be all for rubber stamping his every decree, you know it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  That wasn't the topic.
> 
> 2/3rds of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Do you want to dispute that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> It is the topic. Although he did not vote for the 1964 version due to his being six feet under, he voted against a similar bill in 1957, which means while thanatos got the year wrong, Kennedy did vote against Civil Rights legislation.
> 
> In fact you would be correct in saying that they approved by 2/3rds majority. But then again, you have to wonder why a Democrat plus the Southern Bloc tried to filibuster it/vote against it. Actually, Republicans approved of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by greater margins than the Democrats. Would you care to dispute that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't because the bill was the same bill just a different year.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


lol, how could it be the same bill?  The 1957 bill passed.  Jeezus I'm surrounded by mentalists.


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you all want to know why I left the Republican Party? ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> You left because they didn't vote how you wanted and like a bitch you went home and cried that they just were not being nice to you! *What is it with you people today? How fucking stupid are you to think if you vote for a democrat or republican you gave up your personal opinion? G*uess what in the adult world you dont always get what you want. I sure as hell didnt want the weak will pussies in the republican leadership we have now. But I sure as fuck didnt take my ball home and cry because I seem to have lost that battle. No instead like adult I rolled with the punches and fought back like I am. Nothing is given to you. You also dont make changes at national level you do that at local. We are the united STATES of America meaning we are a collection of many governments not just one monolithic monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> people are also being brainwashed in that direction - to make sure conservatives do not vote, as neither party suits them.
> It is a subtle propaganda deceit and it is aimed at people who would otherwise vote republican as to assure that the leftard scum is voted off.
> 
> there are going to be puppet candidates from the fake libertarians or "real" conservatives or any other manufactured "right" paid by the extreme left - exactly like it happened in Virginia.
> The stupid republican establishment also plays to the leftards agenda - by desire of "punishing" the ones inside the party who do not want to agree with the establishment ( as they withdrew ALL COSTS form Virginia races).
> 
> There is a proverb in my native language - if Good Lord wants to punish someone - he takes away their thinking abilities.
> That is what is going on both with republican party establishment and the conservative electorate - they are punishing each other - ones by keeping tight their money, others - by sitting out the elections.
> In the result the dimocrap scum is winning and both the RINO establishment and the conservative electorate have to abide by the extreme leftard policies which they basically are helping to install by their own stupidity.
Click to expand...


Here's a clue to the kind of problem the OP is trying to point out...



> *RINO*



"RINO" (or DINO) means a politician who dares to hold a position at variance with what the user of the acronym believes must be the lockstep position of their party.  That is, one who dares to think for him/herself.  Oh the horror.

What it conveniently forgets is that that Senator, Congresscritter, Governor or city councilman isn't elected to serve a party, but to serve his/her constituents.  When we start elevating party over our own community, we've descended down a deep hole of slavish robotic thinking.  And that never ends well.


----------



## NYcarbineer

thanatos144 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> It is the topic. Although he did not vote for the 1964 version due to his being six feet under, he voted against a similar bill in 1957, which means while thanatos got the year wrong, Kennedy did vote against Civil Rights legislation.
> 
> In fact you would be correct in saying that they approved by 2/3rds majority. But then again, you have to wonder why a Democrat plus the Southern Bloc tried to filibuster it/vote against it. Actually, Republicans approved of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by greater margins than the Democrats. Would you care to dispute that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, I think it's pretty funny that you start a thread complaining about party-line hackery, and a few hours later you're engaging in it with as much zeal as ever.
> 
> The Southern wing of the Democratic Party in 1964 was the CONSERVATIVE wing.  They voted against the civil rights act of 1964 because they were CONSERVATIVES.  That's all there is to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying conservative it wasn't conservative it was a Democrat get used to it is Democrat the hell slaves first Democrat sec rated the KKK is Democrats that voted against civil rights until a pass in spite of them
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Strom Thurmond set a record filibustering the 1957 bill.  Later he became a Republican.  Was he a liberal Republican?


----------



## NYcarbineer

thanatos144 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the far left propaganda continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're accusing the DNC of denying that southern conservative Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Who are you referring to?  Or are you the one whose lying?
> 
> Name ONE Democrat who ever publicly denied that conservative southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> One.  And link to them saying so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dummy you do know that one of your heroes JFK voted against it right? As well as Johnson before he was president....And Gore Senior and Rockefeller and most of the democrats of that time....It wasn't a conservative thing it was a democrat thing.
Click to expand...


President Kennedy _*proposed *_ the Civil Rights Act in 1963.

Civil Rights Address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it.


----------



## thanatos144

NYcarbineer said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> It is the topic. Although he did not vote for the 1964 version due to his being six feet under, he voted against a similar bill in 1957, which means while thanatos got the year wrong, Kennedy did vote against Civil Rights legislation.
> 
> In fact you would be correct in saying that they approved by 2/3rds majority. But then again, you have to wonder why a Democrat plus the Southern Bloc tried to filibuster it/vote against it. Actually, Republicans approved of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by greater margins than the Democrats. Would you care to dispute that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't because the bill was the same bill just a different year.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, how could it be the same bill?  The 1957 bill passed.  Jeezus I'm surrounded by mentalists.
Click to expand...


How can it be because it is the same bill you f****** moron and it was a bill paid for by Republicans oh by the way using a wiki as proof about Kennedy is asinine Kennedy was a racist criminal rapist 

tapatalk post


----------



## Destroyer2

You have the freedom to state your opinion as long as it is the same as mine.

'Nuff said.


----------



## thanatos144

Destroyer2 said:


> You have the freedom to state your opinion as long as it is the same as mine.
> 
> 'Nuff said.



 who are you referring the Democrats or the Libertarians cause both do this?

tapatalk post


----------



## Destroyer2

thanatos144 said:


> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to state your opinion as long as it is the same as mine.
> 
> 'Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess who are you referring the Democrats or the Libertarians cause both do this?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I didn't identify any particular group.

This is done purposely.


----------



## thanatos144

Destroyer2 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to state your opinion as long as it is the same as mine.
> 
> 'Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess who are you referring the Democrats or the Libertarians cause both do this?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't identify any particular group.
> 
> This is done purposely.
Click to expand...


Didn't mean to say guess. My phone sometimes just Wright s*** that it feels needs to be there

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

By the way to those of you who think I am being a dick I am NOT the one who started insulting thread I'm also not the one looks down upon people because they vote a certain way nor am I  one who say I'm something I'm not just so I can vote in the primaries dishonest f****** hacks

tapatalk post


----------



## Pogo

NYcarbineer said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, I think it's pretty funny that you start a thread complaining about party-line hackery, and a few hours later you're engaging in it with as much zeal as ever.
> 
> The Southern wing of the Democratic Party in 1964 was the CONSERVATIVE wing.  They voted against the civil rights act of 1964 because they were CONSERVATIVES.  That's all there is to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying conservative it wasn't conservative it was a Democrat get used to it is Democrat the hell slaves first Democrat sec rated the KKK is Democrats that voted against civil rights until a pass in spite of them
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were conservatives.  Period.  Where did you ever get the foolish notion that a Democrat couldn't be a conservative?
Click to expand...


TheNutToast is exactly the kind of lying asshole that personifies the worst of what the OP was talking about.

We could demolish the flaming idiocy of the CRA and KKK fabrications individually but it's been done elsewhere and would be off topic.  So as was said about the exact same poster in a different thread: "don't feed the troll".  As can be seen just above...



thanatos144 said:


> By the way to those of you who think I am being a dick I am NOT the one who started insulting thread I'm also not the one looks down upon people because they vote a certain way nor am I  one who say I'm something I'm not just so I can vote in the primaries dishonest f****** hacks



--- he's in self-meltdown mode already.  Let him flame himself out.


----------



## Destroyer2

thanatos144 said:


> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess who are you referring the Democrats or the Libertarians cause both do this?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't identify any particular group.
> 
> This is done purposely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to say guess. My phone sometimes just Wright s*** that it feels needs to be there
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Yeah I figured.

Still not identifying any groups though. I'd rather leave it up to interpretation.


----------



## NYcarbineer

thanatos144 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't because the bill was the same bill just a different year.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, how could it be the same bill?  The 1957 bill passed.  Jeezus I'm surrounded by mentalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can it be because it is the same bill you f****** moron and it was a bill paid for by Republicans oh by the way using a wiki as proof about Kennedy is asinine Kennedy was a racist criminal rapist
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Calm down.

The 1957 bill became law.  They did not pass it again in 1964.  1964 was a different bill.


----------



## Pheonixops

TemplarKormac said:


> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom.* But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, no there is no freedom of opinion anymore. *It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> *Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.* Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' *The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.'* In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.



Firstly, your opinion and blanket generalization is wrong, there are plenty of people from those groups you mentioned who are NOT "victims of the Democrats". Secondly, not everyone or the majority of people are calling them uncle toms, anti-immigrant, etc. 
Secondly, you complained about no "freedom of opinion anymore", but you seem to be complaining about some people's of rubio, et al. 
It's kind of funny that you mentioned "black men, black women, white women and Hispanics" but left out White men, do you not think that they are victims of political parties as well? Do you not think that some white male republicans (and other republicans of course) have their own little "purity tests" going on, and have their own way of calling people that "get off of the reservation", uncle toms? See what's happening with Boehner, I heard some republicans calling him a RINO, etc.


----------



## thanatos144

Pogo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying conservative it wasn't conservative it was a Democrat get used to it is Democrat the hell slaves first Democrat sec rated the KKK is Democrats that voted against civil rights until a pass in spite of them
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were conservatives.  Period.  Where did you ever get the foolish notion that a Democrat couldn't be a conservative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TheNutToast is exactly the kind of lying asshole that personifies the worst of what the OP was talking about.
> 
> We could demolish the flaming idiocy of the CRA and KKK fabrications individually but it's been done elsewhere and would be off topic.  So as was said about the exact same poster in a different thread: "don't feed the troll".  As can be seen just above...
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way to those of you who think I am being a dick I am NOT the one who started insulting thread I'm also not the one looks down upon people because they vote a certain way nor am I  one who say I'm something I'm not just so I can vote in the primaries dishonest f****** hacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- he's in self-meltdown mode already.  Let him flame himself out.
Click to expand...


Listen you dishonest f*** the KKK was invention of the Democrats . They are the ones that institutionalized  racism

tapatalk post


----------



## Pheonixops

Kosh said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.*
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
Click to expand...


The same stupid assertion over and over again! People change and parties change, there was a point when the Democrats (Southern especially) were the conservatives and the Republicans (Northern and some southern) were the Liberals and "radicals". As has been repeated over and over again is that the vote for the Civil Rights Act was pretty regional. The white Democratic Southerners voted against that Act. 
Do the Republicans of today have more Black Congressmen and women than the Democrats? What about the Republicans vs the Democrats after Reconstruction, did they or didn't they have more Black Congressmen and women than the Democrats? In short; it's pretty ignorant and or dishonest when people try to use that half assed assertion or point that you are using. It's apples and oranges. What party today has the most representation from most of the minority groups in this country Republicans or Democrats? What party today has the most representation (percentage wise) from White males, Republican or Democrat?


----------



## thanatos144

NYcarbineer said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, how could it be the same bill?  The 1957 bill passed.  Jeezus I'm surrounded by mentalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be because it is the same bill you f****** moron and it was a bill paid for by Republicans oh by the way using a wiki as proof about Kennedy is asinine Kennedy was a racist criminal rapist
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calm down.
> 
> The 1957 bill became law.  They did not pass it again in 1964.  1964 was a different bill.
Click to expand...


No it didn't it was changed by democrats to make it different thus why republicans pushed twice more

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Pheonixops said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom.* But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, no there is no freedom of opinion anymore. *It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> *Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.* Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' *The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.'* In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your opinion and blanket generalization is wrong, there are plenty of people from those groups you mentioned who are NOT "victims of the Democrats". Secondly, not everyone or the majority of people are calling them uncle toms, anti-immigrant, etc.
> Secondly, you complained about no "freedom of opinion anymore", but you seem to be complaining about some people's of rubio, et al.
> It's kind of funny that you mentioned "black men, black women, white women and Hispanics" but left out White men, do you not think that they are victims of political parties as well? Do you not think that some white male republicans (and other republicans of course) have their own little "purity tests" going on, and have their own way of calling people that "get off of the reservation", uncle toms? See what's happening with Boehner, I heard some republicans calling him a RINO, etc.
Click to expand...


That's because boner is a rino. He isn't even following the party platform 

tapatalk post


----------



## Pheonixops

WelfareQueen said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The empirical evidence suggests people who routinely vote Democrat feel like they need to be protected.  It's kind of the wimpy guy syndrome.  That's why cops, military guys, and gun owners tend to vote Republican.
> 
> The core Democrat voting blocs are all groups that tend to feel the Government needs to protect them.  Blacks, gays, and single women.  The Democrat Party skillfully plays to their fears.
> 
> The Republican Party plays to the fears of the tough self-sufficient men and women who feel threatened by Government overreach and a dissolution of the values that made this Country great.  Those mean Democrats will take away your guns and your God.  You will be overrun by a greedy, lazy, minority horde.
> 
> Both parties play to fear.  Personally, I generally don't like the Democrat philosophy...not because I dislike minorities, *but because I do not want the Government all up in my junk.*  I can take care of myself just fine, thank you.
Click to expand...


So therefore you vote for the party that enacted the PA, etc.?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have, otherwise they would tell the truth on them being the party of NO in the Civil Rights act of 1964.
> 
> When is the DNC and their programmed minions going to own up to it?
> 
> The DNC media combined with the far left take over of the public school system is not helping matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh, you are speaking hardline reactionary opinions that are not justified by the facts.
> 
> For instance, Civil Rights voting in Congress divided along geographical lines, *North and West Pubs and Dems voting overwhelming for civil rights against Southern Pubs and Dems voting overwhelmingly against civil rights*.  Those are the *facts*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, but the far left has to make excuses because they know they were the party against the civil rights. Like it or not that is the truth and the facts. It took the Republicans bargaining to make it happen. If the far left wants to believe *an alternate history *that is fine, but please don't pass it off as a "fact".
> 
> Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones will say or do anything to protect their far left religion.
Click to expand...


You are a *far right reactionary TeaP writing an alternate *history.  Reputable colleges don't teach your nonsense.


----------



## thanatos144

JakeStarkey said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh, you are speaking hardline reactionary opinions that are not justified by the facts.
> 
> For instance, Civil Rights voting in Congress divided along geographical lines, *North and West Pubs and Dems voting overwhelming for civil rights against Southern Pubs and Dems voting overwhelmingly against civil rights*.  Those are the *facts*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, but the far left has to make excuses because they know they were the party against the civil rights. Like it or not that is the truth and the facts. It took the Republicans bargaining to make it happen. If the far left wants to believe *an alternate history *that is fine, but please don't pass it off as a "fact".
> 
> Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones will say or do anything to protect their far left religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a *far right reactionary TeaP writing an alternate *history.  Reputable colleges don't teach your nonsense.
Click to expand...


You are a dishonest hack 

tapatalk post


----------



## Pheonixops

TemplarKormac said:


> I think some of you are missing the point of my message, while some of you are absolutely on point.* The fact there are those of you that you see each other as an enemy or ally, friend or foe, *is proof positive that freedom of opinion no longer exists.



But isn't that their own opinion that they are freely expressing?


----------



## Pogo

thanatos144 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were conservatives.  Period.  Where did you ever get the foolish notion that a Democrat couldn't be a conservative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNutToast is exactly the kind of lying asshole that personifies the worst of what the OP was talking about.
> 
> We could demolish the flaming idiocy of the CRA and KKK fabrications individually but it's been done elsewhere and would be off topic.  So as was said about the exact same poster in a different thread: "don't feed the troll".  As can be seen just above...
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way to those of you who think I am being a dick I am NOT the one who started insulting thread I'm also not the one looks down upon people because they vote a certain way nor am I  one who say I'm something I'm not just so I can vote in the primaries dishonest f****** hacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- he's in self-meltdown mode already.  Let him flame himself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen you dishonest f*** the KKK was invention of the Democrats . They are the ones that institutionalized  racism
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


You want to revise history --- with that brain?  Not happening, Sparky.

FWIW the KKK was founded by half a dozen Confederate soldier vets around a campfire in Pulaski, Tennessee on Christmas Day 1865.  It has never been a political organization or connected with any party.  You and the revisionists you rode in on just make yourselves look ridiculous.  The OP's point about slavishly following political parties around like sheep is bad enough; here you're making stuff up out of whole cloth to dig even deeper.

One more reason you're a pathetic uninformed wanker.

(/offtopic)


----------



## Pheonixops

Moonglow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So. From one sentence that is from an intro paragraph. you try to explain your myopic feeble attempt at writing a serious epitaph of your_ one horse town _mind espousing your epiphany?
> 
> Why waste digital space and just re post or bump one of your other tired threads that you attempt to cement your id and ego upon us? You must have a bounty of free time in your attempts to post your tired redundant reiteration rhetoric you so bore us with.
> 
> Me thinks your time may be better spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your trash. Negged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ty for negging me for my opinion, those things you say do not exist.
Click to expand...


LOL, the guy complains that people can't have an opinion anymore, then he negs you for yours! That's pretty fucking LAME!!!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

thanatos144 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, but the far left has to make excuses because they know they were the party against the civil rights. Like it or not that is the truth and the facts. It took the Republicans bargaining to make it happen. If the far left wants to believe *an alternate history *that is fine, but please don't pass it off as a "fact".
> 
> Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones will say or do anything to protect their far left religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a *far right reactionary TeaP writing an alternate *history.  Reputable colleges don't teach your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest hack
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


You are


----------



## thanatos144

Pogo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> TheNutToast is exactly the kind of lying asshole that personifies the worst of what the OP was talking about.
> 
> We could demolish the flaming idiocy of the CRA and KKK fabrications individually but it's been done elsewhere and would be off topic.  So as was said about the exact same poster in a different thread: "don't feed the troll".  As can be seen just above...
> 
> 
> 
> --- he's in self-meltdown mode already.  Let him flame himself out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you dishonest f*** the KKK was invention of the Democrats . They are the ones that institutionalized  racism
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to revise history --- with that brain?  Not happening, Sparky.
> 
> FWIW the KKK was founded by half a dozen Confederate soldier vets around a campfire in Pulaski, Tennessee on Christmas Day 1865.  It has never been a political organization or connected with any party.  You and the revisionists you rode in on just make yourselves look ridiculous.  The OP's point about slavishly following political parties around like sheep is bad enough; here you're making stuff up out of whole cloth to dig even deeper.
> 
> One more reason you're a pathetic uninformed wanker.
> 
> (/offtopic)
Click to expand...


Lol confederates were democrats 

tapatalk post


----------



## Pheonixops

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then register as a libertarian . Otherwise you are nothing more then a fence sitter trying to act better then everyone yet refusing to actually make a choice. Like being married and sleeping around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will not have my choices dictated to me, thanatos. If I registered as a Libertarian in Georgia, I would deny myself the ability to vote in either Republican or Democratic primaries. Why do you continue to insist that I 'act better than everyone else'? Mister, I live poverty, I have an elderly grandmother that requires almost constant attention, I've gone through a lot in my own life that taught me that such things as egotism and arrogance ill serves me in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> You think you can sit there on your perch and prejudge me? How dare you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you are not a republican or democrat why do you think you have the right to vote in their primaries?
Click to expand...


Is it limpbaugh's "Operation Chaos"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

thanatos144 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you dishonest f*** the KKK was invention of the Democrats . They are the ones that institutionalized  racism
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to revise history --- with that brain?  Not happening, Sparky.
> 
> FWIW the KKK was founded by half a dozen Confederate soldier vets around a campfire in Pulaski, Tennessee on Christmas Day 1865.  It has never been a political organization or connected with any party.  You and the revisionists you rode in on just make yourselves look ridiculous.  The OP's point about slavishly following political parties around like sheep is bad enough; here you're making stuff up out of whole cloth to dig even deeper.
> 
> One more reason you're a pathetic uninformed wanker.
> 
> (/offtopic)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol confederates were democrats
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Confederates were first and foremost conservative reactionaries, just like the Southern GOP and Dems who voted against Civil Rights a 104 years later.


----------



## Pheonixops

thereisnospoon said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the far left seems to be the worst of the lot and far more dangerous and damaging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is the case with the far right, too. To say that one side is worse than the other is just the party talking. That's exactly why I wrote this OP. Political party influence has taken away the freedom to think, to choose, and to express without reprisal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The problem is even moderately libs have been programmed to believe ANY right wing speech is extremist.*
> In fact with the help of the main stream media, liberals have been able to create a narrative on this. That is anything relating to the GOP or conservatism is viewed as "far right wing"...
Click to expand...


That's not accurate, I know plenty of Liberals who believe in freedom of speech:

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


----------



## Pheonixops

thanatos144 said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom.* But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, no there is no freedom of opinion anymore. *It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> *Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.* Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' *The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.'* In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your opinion and blanket generalization is wrong, there are plenty of people from those groups you mentioned who are NOT "victims of the Democrats". Secondly, not everyone or the majority of people are calling them uncle toms, anti-immigrant, etc.
> Secondly, you complained about no "freedom of opinion anymore", but you seem to be complaining about some people's of rubio, et al.
> It's kind of funny that you mentioned "black men, black women, white women and Hispanics" but left out White men, do you not think that they are victims of political parties as well? Do you not think that some white male republicans (and other republicans of course) have their own little "purity tests" going on, and have their own way of calling people that "get off of the reservation", uncle toms? See what's happening with Boehner, I heard some republicans calling him a RINO, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because boner is a rino. He isn't even following the party platform
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I don't know what he is, I do think that he has a hard job as Speaker because he has a few powerful factions and constituents that he has to make happy. hannity outright insulted Boehner today, I forget what it was as we were driving, but I remember telling my wife that   Boehner could put an ass whuppin' on hannity.


----------



## thanatos144

JakeStarkey said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to revise history --- with that brain?  Not happening, Sparky.
> 
> FWIW the KKK was founded by half a dozen Confederate soldier vets around a campfire in Pulaski, Tennessee on Christmas Day 1865.  It has never been a political organization or connected with any party.  You and the revisionists you rode in on just make yourselves look ridiculous.  The OP's point about slavishly following political parties around like sheep is bad enough; here you're making stuff up out of whole cloth to dig even deeper.
> 
> One more reason you're a pathetic uninformed wanker.
> 
> (/offtopic)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol confederates were democrats
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confederates were first and foremost conservative reactionaries, just like the Southern GOP and Dems who voted against Civil Rights a 104 years later.
Click to expand...


Do they teach you this bullshit in school now? 

tapatalk post


----------



## BDBoop

You really stirred up a hornet's nest, TK. And on the RIGHT, of all places!


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pheonixops said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of you are missing the point of my message, while some of you are absolutely on point.* The fact there are those of you that you see each other as an enemy or ally, friend or foe, *is proof positive that freedom of opinion no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't that their own opinion that they are freely expressing?
Click to expand...


Am I stopping them from expressing it?


----------



## TemplarKormac

BDBoop said:


> You really stirred up a hornet's nest, TK. And on the RIGHT, of all places!



Hey, I'm an equal opportunity offender. I answer to neither side.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol confederates were democrats
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confederates were first and foremost conservative reactionaries, just like the Southern GOP and Dems who voted against Civil Rights a 104 years later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they teach you this bullshit in school now?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Did they ever teach you manners in school? Apparently not.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pheonixops said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your trash. Negged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ty for negging me for my opinion, those things you say do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, the guy complains that people can't have an opinion anymore, then he negs you for yours! That's pretty fucking LAME!!!!!
Click to expand...


When a guy goes about making inflammatory remarks about the author, not even close to making opinions about the thread, yes he will be negged. Get over it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

occupied said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, no there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not buying it. If we had a republican president right now you would be all for rubber stamping his every decree, you know it.
Click to expand...


Um, no I wouldn't actually. Who said I was a 'Republican'?


----------



## TemplarKormac

NYcarbineer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  That wasn't the topic.
> 
> 2/3rds of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Do you want to dispute that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> It is the topic. Although he did not vote for the 1964 version due to his being six feet under, he voted against a similar bill in 1957, which means while thanatos got the year wrong, Kennedy did vote against Civil Rights legislation.
> 
> In fact you would be correct in saying that they approved by 2/3rds majority. But then again, you have to wonder why a Democrat plus the Southern Bloc tried to filibuster it/vote against it. Actually, Republicans approved of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by greater margins than the Democrats. Would you care to dispute that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, I think it's pretty funny that you start a thread complaining about party-line hackery, and a few hours later you're engaging in it with as much zeal as ever.
> 
> The Southern wing of the Democratic Party in 1964 was the CONSERVATIVE wing.  They voted against the civil rights act of 1964 because they were CONSERVATIVES.  That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...


So fact checking your mistakes is all of a sudden 'party line hackery'? Gee, you love avoiding the part where you were wrong, carbine. Did you miss the part where I tore into thanatos? Of course not. Now who is it exactly engaging in 'party line hackery'? Hmm?


----------



## BDBoop

TK, you really do appear arrogant when you presume to present yourself as the ideal for what you're attacking everybody about - without even bothering to find out if they are or are not doing what you've accused them of.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pheonixops said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your trash. Negged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ty for negging me for my opinion, those things you say do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, the guy complains that people can't have an opinion anymore, then he negs you for yours! That's pretty fucking LAME!!!!!
Click to expand...


One other thing, there's a difference between having an opinion and making an assumption. If all you do is spout trash about my character, expect to be negged. If you trash my OP without reading it, you'll be negged. He's free to have his opinions, but he isn't free to call me names or make derogatory remarks about me. Is that clear?


----------



## TemplarKormac

BDBoop said:


> TK, you really do appear arrogant when you presume to present yourself as the ideal for what you're attacking everybody about - without even bothering to find out if they are or are not doing what you've accused them of.



Did I ever say I was perfect? That's the problem with people, they suddenly expect perfection, but are not perfect themselves. Why do people call me arrogant? What have I done in this thread to be arrogant? I haven't gotten a clear answer from anyone there. Nobody seems to want to address the topic of my thread, but are on overdrive assessing my character. You know, people preach to me about double standards, but I see them all around.

What is arrogant, BD, is when people like moonie and thanatos jump into a thread they've never read, they spew utter nonsense; they don't even opine on the subject matter of the thread, and they go on to make prejudgements about my character---but when I respond I'm suddenly labeled as arrogant. 

I'm not the ideal for anything,  I've never presented myself as ideal for anything. In fact, I hope someone superior to me could take the concept I introduced and apply it, build on it and spread it.  I won't presume to sit here and think that I am the epitome of such an ideal. That BD, would be arrogant.

Lastly, I wasn't attacking anyone, just making an observation. The firestorm came when people decided to take it personally. I didn't hurl baseless accusations at anyone. In fact, thanatos did a great job in proving the point of my thread.


----------



## BDBoop

TemplarKormac said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> TK, you really do appear arrogant when you presume to present yourself as the ideal for what you're attacking everybody about - without even bothering to find out if they are or are not doing what you've accused them of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ever say I was perfect? That's the problem with people, they suddenly expect perfection, but are not perfect themselves. Why do people call me arrogant? What have I done in this thread to be arrogant? I haven't gotten a clear answer from anyone there. Nobody seems to want to address the topic of my thread, but are on overdrive assessing my character. You know, people preach to me about double standards, but I see them all around.
> 
> What is arrogant, BD, is when people like moonie and thanatos jump into a thread they've never read, they spew utter nonsense; they don't even opine on the subject matter of the thread, and they go on to make prejudgements about my character---but when I respond I'm suddenly labeled as arrogant.
> 
> I'm not the ideal for anything,  I've never presented myself as ideal for anything. In fact, I hope someone superior to me could take the concept I introduced and apply it, build on it and spread it.  I won't presume to sit here and think that I am the epitome of such an ideal. That BD, would be arrogant.
> 
> Lastly, I wasn't attacking anyone, just making an observation. The firestorm came when people decided to take it personally. I didn't hurl baseless accusations at anyone. In fact, thanatos did a great job in proving the point of my thread.
Click to expand...


If several people are calling you arrogant, then you best start doing some soul-searching.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Anyways, the reactions I got from people here only served to justify my own misgivings about the two party system. Too busy people are parroting scripted talking points fed them by their respective parties that they are nothing but unwitting footsoldiers fighting a fruitless war. When someone tells me "my thoughts are my own" I will reply, "are they?"


----------



## TemplarKormac

BDBoop said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> TK, you really do appear arrogant when you presume to present yourself as the ideal for what you're attacking everybody about - without even bothering to find out if they are or are not doing what you've accused them of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ever say I was perfect? That's the problem with people, they suddenly expect perfection, but are not perfect themselves. Why do people call me arrogant? What have I done in this thread to be arrogant? I haven't gotten a clear answer from anyone there. Nobody seems to want to address the topic of my thread, but are on overdrive assessing my character. You know, people preach to me about double standards, but I see them all around.
> 
> What is arrogant, BD, is when people like moonie and thanatos jump into a thread they've never read, they spew utter nonsense; they don't even opine on the subject matter of the thread, and they go on to make prejudgements about my character---but when I respond I'm suddenly labeled as arrogant.
> 
> I'm not the ideal for anything,  I've never presented myself as ideal for anything. In fact, I hope someone superior to me could take the concept I introduced and apply it, build on it and spread it.  I won't presume to sit here and think that I am the epitome of such an ideal. That BD, would be arrogant.
> 
> Lastly, I wasn't attacking anyone, just making an observation. The firestorm came when people decided to take it personally. I didn't hurl baseless accusations at anyone. In fact, thanatos did a great job in proving the point of my thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If several people are calling you arrogant, then you best start doing some soul-searching.
Click to expand...


I won't be doing any soul searching until people start backing those claims up, BD. As of now, nobody has.


----------



## BDBoop

TemplarKormac said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ever say I was perfect? That's the problem with people, they suddenly expect perfection, but are not perfect themselves. Why do people call me arrogant? What have I done in this thread to be arrogant? I haven't gotten a clear answer from anyone there. Nobody seems to want to address the topic of my thread, but are on overdrive assessing my character. You know, people preach to me about double standards, but I see them all around.
> 
> What is arrogant, BD, is when people like moonie and thanatos jump into a thread they've never read, they spew utter nonsense; they don't even opine on the subject matter of the thread, and they go on to make prejudgements about my character---but when I respond I'm suddenly labeled as arrogant.
> 
> I'm not the ideal for anything,  I've never presented myself as ideal for anything. In fact, I hope someone superior to me could take the concept I introduced and apply it, build on it and spread it.  I won't presume to sit here and think that I am the epitome of such an ideal. That BD, would be arrogant.
> 
> Lastly, I wasn't attacking anyone, just making an observation. The firestorm came when people decided to take it personally. I didn't hurl baseless accusations at anyone. In fact, thanatos did a great job in proving the point of my thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If several people are calling you arrogant, then you best start doing some soul-searching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't be doing any soul searching until people start backing those claims up, BD. As of now, nobody has.
Click to expand...


Suit yourself.


----------



## TemplarKormac

SwimExpert said:


> A free opinion is not granted, it is taken.



Opinion can be bought, sold, twisted, manipulated...influenced. So can those who choose to simply issue one without knowing if it is rooted in reality. Can they have one? Of course! I don't care! I don't begrudge anyone of their 1st Amendment rights!

But need I remind you:

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.


----------



## BDBoop

That's arrogant.

Also - you're doing the "always have to be right and have the last word" - that thing you say you don't do?

You're doing it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

BDBoop said:


> That's arrogant.
> 
> Also - you're doing the "always have to be right and have the last word" - that thing you say you don't do?
> 
> You're doing it.



In what way exactly? When you respond to me, BD, am I not allowed to respond back? I don't want the last word or to be right, frankly, I was hoping to be proven wrong in this thread. That never happened. My point was made three separate times by three different people (four if you count the initial comments). And unlike some folks out there, I don't think discussing real world issues is a game to be won or lost. I don't stoop to such petty contests as "getting in the last word." What does that serve exactly?


----------



## LoneLaugher

TK,

Help us out here. 

What can we do to abandon our sheepish ways like you have? In a matter of a few years, you have shed yourself of the "party at all costs" mentality and become a truly independent thinker. While you were once a staight up GOP stooge....you are now a man who beats to his own drum. Very admirable. 

What steps did you take to bring about that change? Can you articulate them? Can you credit anyone or any thing with encouraging this growth? The rest of us would like to see if we can benefit in a similar manner.


----------



## TemplarKormac

LoneLaugher said:


> TK,
> 
> Help us out here.
> 
> What can we do to abandon our sheepish ways like you have? In a matter of a few years, you have shed yourself of the "party at all costs" mentality and become a truly independent thinker. While you were once a staight up GOP stooge....you are now a man who beats to his own drum. Very admirable.
> 
> What steps did you take to bring about that change? Can you articulate them? Can you credit anyone or any thing with encouraging this growth? The rest of us would like to see if we can benefit in a similar manner.



Hmmm, lets see how I can put this succinctly, if I can:

I refused to be led by the hand. Instead of succumbing to all the propaganda I heard from the left or right wing pundits, I began living a fact based existence. Reality isn't something that comes from the mouths of men in suits and ties. It can't be dictated. I sought objectivity. I accepted the fact that not all facts conform to the left or right wing paradigm. Reality has no bias. 

I dropped the two party system cold turkey. After the 2012 election, I chose not to be a pawn anymore. I wanted my mind back. I wanted to think freely and learn freely, without the constraints of having my world interpreted through red or blue tint. I grew tired of the partisanship in politics. A friend of mine in Wisconsin whom I've known since 2007 can be credited with encouraging me to think for myself, he himself is a libertarian and went through a similar change. 

It was so bad at one point, I hung on every word Glenn Beck had to say. I reacted hostilely to differing points of view. Beck is a wise man, but sometimes he is a bit paranoid and eccentric. I learned not to worship at the feet of my favorite guy. I began understanding that it simply doesn't pay to idolize political figures, politicians or presidents. 

All it boils down to is determination. Seek out the reality of things, even if it doesn't jive with the party you support. Don't take everything you hear for granted, research, fact check, double check. It never hurts to dig for facts or look behind someone to see if they are genuine. Above everything else, seek absolute truth and settle for no substitute. Research the claims people make, don't be afraid to call them out if they are wrong. Employ logical reasoning, don't run from a challenge. 

Honesty and integrity is key. If you want to be taken seriously (yes it's a bit cliche) you have to be honest and consistent. Take this forum for example: I thrive on making factual arguments, I try not to make anecdotal arguments, while trying to employ logic and corroborating evidence.  The reason my responses are so long winded is because I take the time to think out my replies, I do research, if the facts don't back my claim, I avoid making it. As you have no doubt witnessed firsthand, admitting when you're wrong helps you to learn. I assimilate superior points of view to my own and adopt them. 

Don't be afraid to call other members of your party out for being dishonest or disingenuous. As with with thanatos, Katz, Deltex, bigreb and others, I wasn't afraid to go head to head with them. If you want a good example of that, look for my responses in the Nelson Mandela threads to other conservatives on this board.


----------



## TemplarKormac

In furtherance, I try to be a kindhearted man, I deplore the fact the people will instantaneously vilify other people for their beliefs. It is tearing this country apart. If you want to see the evil in someone, get into a political debate with them. Oh and one thing I forgot to add: don't be afraid to reach out to one side of the political spectrum or the other; left, right, or middle. Look for the good in others, never for their political flaws. I made that mistake and it cost me a longtime friendship.


----------



## gipper

TemplarKormac said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> TK,
> 
> Help us out here.
> 
> What can we do to abandon our sheepish ways like you have? In a matter of a few years, you have shed yourself of the "party at all costs" mentality and become a truly independent thinker. While you were once a staight up GOP stooge....you are now a man who beats to his own drum. Very admirable.
> 
> What steps did you take to bring about that change? Can you articulate them? Can you credit anyone or any thing with encouraging this growth? The rest of us would like to see if we can benefit in a similar manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, lets see how I can put this succinctly, if I can:
> 
> I refused to be led by the hand. Instead of succumbing to all the propaganda I heard from the left or right wing pundits, I began living a fact based existence. Reality isn't something that comes from the mouths of men in suits and ties. It can't be dictated. I sought objectivity. I accepted the fact that not all facts conform to the left or right wing paradigm. Reality has no bias.
> 
> I dropped the two party system cold turkey. After the 2012 election, I chose not to be a pawn anymore. I wanted my mind back. I wanted to think freely and learn freely, without the constraints of having my world interpreted through red or blue tint. I grew tired of the partisanship in politics. A friend of mine in Wisconsin whom I've known since 2007 can be credited with encouraging me to think for myself, he himself is a libertarian and went through a similar change.
> 
> It was so bad at one point, I hung on every word Glenn Beck had to say. I reacted hostilely to differing points of view. Beck is a wise man, but sometimes he is a bit paranoid and eccentric. I learned not to worship at the feet of my favorite guy. I began understanding that it simply doesn't pay to idolize political figures, politicians or presidents.
> 
> All it boils down to is determination. Seek out the reality of things, even if it doesn't jive with the party you support. Don't take everything you hear for granted, research, fact check, double check. It never hurts to dig for facts or look behind someone to see if they are genuine. Above everything else, seek absolute truth and settle for no substitute. Research the claims people make, don't be afraid to call them out if they are wrong. Employ logical reasoning, don't run from a challenge.
> 
> Honesty and integrity is key. If you want to be taken seriously (yes it's a bit cliche) you have to be honest and consistent. Take this forum for example: I thrive on making factual arguments, I try not to make anecdotal arguments, while trying to employ logic and corroborating evidence.  The reason my responses are so long winded is because I take the time to think out my replies, I do research, if the facts don't back my claim, I avoid making it. As you have no doubt witnessed firsthand, admitting when you're wrong helps you to learn. I assimilate superior points of view to my own and adopt them.
> 
> Don't be afraid to call other members of your party out for being dishonest or disingenuous. As with with thanatos, Katz, Deltex, bigreb and others, I wasn't afraid to go head to head with them. If you want a good example of that, look for my responses in the Nelson Mandela threads to other conservatives on this board.
Click to expand...


Agreed, but it is more than that.  It is learning and understanding history and human nature.  History tells us centralized government, whether by monarch, dictator, or democrat is always bad for the people.  Many think man is inherently good, he is not.  And a man with enormous power, always leads to pain and suffering for the people.  The great quote of, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...is so true.  Yet, amazingly many Americans fail to see this.  They want to believe in their leaders and willingly accept the lies they are told.  

History also tells us that many will believe the lies to the bitter end and the power elite KNOW they can always dupe a large segment of the populace.  This quote is equally true...You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time...


----------



## TemplarKormac

gipper said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> TK,
> 
> Help us out here.
> 
> What can we do to abandon our sheepish ways like you have? In a matter of a few years, you have shed yourself of the "party at all costs" mentality and become a truly independent thinker. While you were once a staight up GOP stooge....you are now a man who beats to his own drum. Very admirable.
> 
> What steps did you take to bring about that change? Can you articulate them? Can you credit anyone or any thing with encouraging this growth? The rest of us would like to see if we can benefit in a similar manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, lets see how I can put this succinctly, if I can:
> 
> I refused to be led by the hand. Instead of succumbing to all the propaganda I heard from the left or right wing pundits, I began living a fact based existence. Reality isn't something that comes from the mouths of men in suits and ties. It can't be dictated. I sought objectivity. I accepted the fact that not all facts conform to the left or right wing paradigm. Reality has no bias.
> 
> I dropped the two party system cold turkey. After the 2012 election, I chose not to be a pawn anymore. I wanted my mind back. I wanted to think freely and learn freely, without the constraints of having my world interpreted through red or blue tint. I grew tired of the partisanship in politics. A friend of mine in Wisconsin whom I've known since 2007 can be credited with encouraging me to think for myself, he himself is a libertarian and went through a similar change.
> 
> It was so bad at one point, I hung on every word Glenn Beck had to say. I reacted hostilely to differing points of view. Beck is a wise man, but sometimes he is a bit paranoid and eccentric. I learned not to worship at the feet of my favorite guy. I began understanding that it simply doesn't pay to idolize political figures, politicians or presidents.
> 
> All it boils down to is determination. Seek out the reality of things, even if it doesn't jive with the party you support. Don't take everything you hear for granted, research, fact check, double check. It never hurts to dig for facts or look behind someone to see if they are genuine. Above everything else, seek absolute truth and settle for no substitute. Research the claims people make, don't be afraid to call them out if they are wrong. Employ logical reasoning, don't run from a challenge.
> 
> Honesty and integrity is key. If you want to be taken seriously (yes it's a bit cliche) you have to be honest and consistent. Take this forum for example: I thrive on making factual arguments, I try not to make anecdotal arguments, while trying to employ logic and corroborating evidence.  The reason my responses are so long winded is because I take the time to think out my replies, I do research, if the facts don't back my claim, I avoid making it. As you have no doubt witnessed firsthand, admitting when you're wrong helps you to learn. I assimilate superior points of view to my own and adopt them.
> 
> Don't be afraid to call other members of your party out for being dishonest or disingenuous. As with with thanatos, Katz, Deltex, bigreb and others, I wasn't afraid to go head to head with them. If you want a good example of that, look for my responses in the Nelson Mandela threads to other conservatives on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed, but it is more than that.  It is learning and understanding history.  History tells us centralized government, whether by monarch, dictator, or democrat is always bad for the people.
> 
> Many think man is inherently good, he is not.  And a man with enormous power, always leads to pain and suffering for the people.  The great quote of, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...is so true.  Yet, amazingly many Americans fail to see this.  They want to believe in their leaders and willingly accept the lies they are told.
> 
> History also tells us that many will believe the lies to the bitter end and the power elite KNOW they can always dupe a large segment of the populace.  This quote is equally true...You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time...
Click to expand...


Monarch, dictator, democrat, or _republican_. Anyone who leads with a one sided view of the world is dangerous to the world.


----------



## JoeB131

Guy, frankly, not as impressed with your "epiphany" as you are.  

Turning into a Libertarian because you are tired of the two parties that USUALLY have to govern in the real world is the idealogical equivlent of taking your toys and going home.  And the other kids are "Meh, fine."   

The Libertarians are never going to amount to anything.  Not one country has ever imposed a Libertarian government, and there's a reason for that.  




TemplarKormac said:


> I
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio.



Or has it occured to you that these people are called names because they are sort of contemptable.  Let's take Mia Love.  She marries a white guy, joins a whackadoodle cult that says in its bible that Dark Skin is a curse from God, and you REALLY wonder why other blacks have contempt for her?   Really?   





TemplarKormac said:


> I
> On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.



Having followed that thread as much as I could stomach it... frankly, what I saw in that thread was a guy saying, "Hey, let's stop fighting a cause we have effectively lost and concentrate on important stuff" and immediately got piled upon by a bunch of people who just simply couldn't let go of their hatred for other people whose sexuality they don't like.  (In fact, they dislike it so much they just can't stop describing it in graphic detail.)


----------



## Kosh

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, frankly, not as impressed with your "epiphany" as you are.
> 
> Turning into a Libertarian because you are tired of the two parties that USUALLY have to govern in the real world is the idealogical equivlent of taking your toys and going home.  And the other kids are "Meh, fine."
> 
> The Libertarians are never going to amount to anything.  Not one country has ever imposed a Libertarian government, and there's a reason for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or has it occured to you that these people are called names because they are sort of contemptable.  Let's take Mia Love.  She marries a white guy, joins a whackadoodle cult that says in its bible that Dark Skin is a curse from God, and you REALLY wonder why other blacks have contempt for her?   Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having followed that thread as much as I could stomach it... frankly, what I saw in that thread was a guy saying, "Hey, let's stop fighting a cause we have effectively lost and concentrate on important stuff" and immediately got piled upon by a bunch of people who just simply couldn't let go of their hatred for other people whose sexuality they don't like.  (In fact, they dislike it so much they just can't stop describing it in graphic detail.)
Click to expand...


Irony alert!


----------



## JoeB131

Kosh said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, frankly, not as impressed with your "epiphany" as you are.
> 
> Turning into a Libertarian because you are tired of the two parties that USUALLY have to govern in the real world is the idealogical equivlent of taking your toys and going home.  And the other kids are "Meh, fine."
> 
> The Libertarians are never going to amount to anything.  Not one country has ever imposed a Libertarian government, and there's a reason for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or has it occured to you that these people are called names because they are sort of contemptable.  Let's take Mia Love.  She marries a white guy, joins a whackadoodle cult that says in its bible that Dark Skin is a curse from God, and you REALLY wonder why other blacks have contempt for her?   Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having followed that thread as much as I could stomach it... frankly, what I saw in that thread was a guy saying, "Hey, let's stop fighting a cause we have effectively lost and concentrate on important stuff" and immediately got piled upon by a bunch of people who just simply couldn't let go of their hatred for other people whose sexuality they don't like.  (In fact, they dislike it so much they just can't stop describing it in graphic detail.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irony alert!
Click to expand...


Guy, did someone explain to you that a message board, you actually have to debate ideas, not just throw out a line about how you don't like the person who just posted. 

Just saying.


----------



## Kosh

JoeB131 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, frankly, not as impressed with your "epiphany" as you are.
> 
> Turning into a Libertarian because you are tired of the two parties that USUALLY have to govern in the real world is the idealogical equivlent of taking your toys and going home.  And the other kids are "Meh, fine."
> 
> The Libertarians are never going to amount to anything.  Not one country has ever imposed a Libertarian government, and there's a reason for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or has it occured to you that these people are called names because they are sort of contemptable.  Let's take Mia Love.  She marries a white guy, joins a whackadoodle cult that says in its bible that Dark Skin is a curse from God, and you REALLY wonder why other blacks have contempt for her?   Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having followed that thread as much as I could stomach it... frankly, what I saw in that thread was a guy saying, "Hey, let's stop fighting a cause we have effectively lost and concentrate on important stuff" and immediately got piled upon by a bunch of people who just simply couldn't let go of their hatred for other people whose sexuality they don't like.  (In fact, they dislike it so much they just can't stop describing it in graphic detail.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irony alert!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, did someone explain to you that a message board, you actually have to debate ideas, not just throw out a line about how you don't like the person who just posted.
> 
> Just saying.
Click to expand...


Another irony alert!

For some such as you it is about pushing the far left propaganda/agenda vs discussing and debating. In a debate one needs actual facts and that is something the far left is incapable of providing.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, frankly, not as impressed with your "epiphany" as you are.
> 
> Turning into a Libertarian because you are tired of the two parties that USUALLY have to govern in the real world is the idealogical equivlent of taking your toys and going home.  And the other kids are "Meh, fine."
> 
> The Libertarians are never going to amount to anything.  Not one country has ever imposed a Libertarian government, and there's a reason for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or has it occured to you that these people are called names because they are sort of contemptable.  Let's take Mia Love.  She marries a white guy, joins a whackadoodle cult that says in its bible that Dark Skin is a curse from God, and you REALLY wonder why other blacks have contempt for her?   Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having followed that thread as much as I could stomach it... frankly, what I saw in that thread was a guy saying, "Hey, let's stop fighting a cause we have effectively lost and concentrate on important stuff" and immediately got piled upon by a bunch of people who just simply couldn't let go of their hatred for other people whose sexuality they don't like.  (In fact, they dislike it so much they just can't stop describing it in graphic detail.)
Click to expand...


Add this to the list of concepts that have gone over your head... this makes you the 5th person to prove my point.

Joe you reek of partisanship. According to what you've told me, when you got played by one party, you joined the other, now look at you. You will instantly vilify someone who you disagree with, and when confronted with facts, you counter with talking points. You don't ever stop to consider that you might be on the wrong side of an argument. You simply cannot grasp that you're being used. Has it ever occurred to you that you're letting your thoughts and opinions be dictated by what you perceive as political consensus within your party?

This is one of the main reasons I stopped playing this "Republican vs. Democrat" game. You've been consumed by partisanship and a politically motivated hatred. 

And you could have done without cherrypicking my thread, by the way.


----------



## gipper

TemplarKormac said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, lets see how I can put this succinctly, if I can:
> 
> I refused to be led by the hand. Instead of succumbing to all the propaganda I heard from the left or right wing pundits, I began living a fact based existence. Reality isn't something that comes from the mouths of men in suits and ties. It can't be dictated. I sought objectivity. I accepted the fact that not all facts conform to the left or right wing paradigm. Reality has no bias.
> 
> I dropped the two party system cold turkey. After the 2012 election, I chose not to be a pawn anymore. I wanted my mind back. I wanted to think freely and learn freely, without the constraints of having my world interpreted through red or blue tint. I grew tired of the partisanship in politics. A friend of mine in Wisconsin whom I've known since 2007 can be credited with encouraging me to think for myself, he himself is a libertarian and went through a similar change.
> 
> It was so bad at one point, I hung on every word Glenn Beck had to say. I reacted hostilely to differing points of view. Beck is a wise man, but sometimes he is a bit paranoid and eccentric. I learned not to worship at the feet of my favorite guy. I began understanding that it simply doesn't pay to idolize political figures, politicians or presidents.
> 
> All it boils down to is determination. Seek out the reality of things, even if it doesn't jive with the party you support. Don't take everything you hear for granted, research, fact check, double check. It never hurts to dig for facts or look behind someone to see if they are genuine. Above everything else, seek absolute truth and settle for no substitute. Research the claims people make, don't be afraid to call them out if they are wrong. Employ logical reasoning, don't run from a challenge.
> 
> Honesty and integrity is key. If you want to be taken seriously (yes it's a bit cliche) you have to be honest and consistent. Take this forum for example: I thrive on making factual arguments, I try not to make anecdotal arguments, while trying to employ logic and corroborating evidence.  The reason my responses are so long winded is because I take the time to think out my replies, I do research, if the facts don't back my claim, I avoid making it. As you have no doubt witnessed firsthand, admitting when you're wrong helps you to learn. I assimilate superior points of view to my own and adopt them.
> 
> Don't be afraid to call other members of your party out for being dishonest or disingenuous. As with with thanatos, Katz, Deltex, bigreb and others, I wasn't afraid to go head to head with them. If you want a good example of that, look for my responses in the Nelson Mandela threads to other conservatives on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but it is more than that.  It is learning and understanding history.  History tells us centralized government, whether by monarch, dictator, or democrat is always bad for the people.
> 
> Many think man is inherently good, he is not.  And a man with enormous power, always leads to pain and suffering for the people.  The great quote of, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...is so true.  Yet, amazingly many Americans fail to see this.  They want to believe in their leaders and willingly accept the lies they are told.
> 
> History also tells us that many will believe the lies to the bitter end and the power elite KNOW they can always dupe a large segment of the populace.  This quote is equally true...You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monarch, dictator, democrat, or _republican_. Anyone who leads with a one sided view of the world is dangerous to the world.
Click to expand...


You misunderstand.  I used a small d....and by doing so, included both parties.

small-d democrat - Wiktionary


----------



## TemplarKormac

gipper said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but it is more than that.  It is learning and understanding history.  History tells us centralized government, whether by monarch, dictator, or democrat is always bad for the people.
> 
> Many think man is inherently good, he is not.  And a man with enormous power, always leads to pain and suffering for the people.  The great quote of, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...is so true.  Yet, amazingly many Americans fail to see this.  They want to believe in their leaders and willingly accept the lies they are told.
> 
> History also tells us that many will believe the lies to the bitter end and the power elite KNOW they can always dupe a large segment of the populace.  This quote is equally true...You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monarch, dictator, democrat, or _republican_. Anyone who leads with a one sided view of the world is dangerous to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You misunderstand.  I used a small d....and by doing so, included both parties.
> 
> small-d democrat - Wiktionary
Click to expand...


Oh, I see.. forgive me.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> Add this to the list of concepts that have gone over your head... this makes you the 5th person to prove my point.
> 
> Joe you reek of partisanship. According to what you've told me, when you got played by one party, you joined the other, now look at you. You will instantly vilify someone who you disagree with, and when confronted with facts, you counter with talking points. You don't ever stop to consider that you might be on the wrong side of an argument. You simply cannot grasp that you're being used. Has it ever occurred to you that you're letting your thoughts and opinions be dictated by what you perceive as political consensus within your party?
> 
> This is one of the main reasons I stopped playing this "Republican vs. Democrat" game. You've been consumed by partisanship and a politically motivated hatred.
> 
> And you could have done without cherrypicking my thread, by the way.



Guy, I really was trying to address your points without sludging through another one of your tiresome word clouds.  

Again- If you want to be an effective writer, write like you are being paid by the point and penalized by the word.  

Now, to your point, I'm really not fond of EITHER Party, and I split my ballot.  I usually vote for the person, not the party these days.  

Unfortunately, the GOP keeps putting crazy people on the ballot, making it harder to vote for them.  

But like it or not, Democrat and Republican ARE the ONLY games in town. I've seen dozens of "Third Parties" and they are fly by night operators that aren't around for long or just last forever at the fringe. The pragmatic thing is, one of these parties is going to win, and I have to make a decision about which one is going to get me most of the things I wanted. 

In 2008, I voted for McCain, even though I was so over the GOP. But he had experience, Obama didn't.  

In 2012, I voted for Obama because Romney was an evil Mormon douchebag.  

The lessor of two evils...


----------



## BDBoop

Joe's not doing anything you don't do yourself.


----------



## TemplarKormac

BDBoop said:


> Joe's not doing anything you don't do yourself.



What?


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Add this to the list of concepts that have gone over your head... this makes you the 5th person to prove my point.
> 
> Joe you reek of partisanship. According to what you've told me, when you got played by one party, you joined the other, now look at you. You will instantly vilify someone who you disagree with, and when confronted with facts, you counter with talking points. You don't ever stop to consider that you might be on the wrong side of an argument. You simply cannot grasp that you're being used. Has it ever occurred to you that you're letting your thoughts and opinions be dictated by what you perceive as political consensus within your party?
> 
> This is one of the main reasons I stopped playing this "Republican vs. Democrat" game. You've been consumed by partisanship and a politically motivated hatred.
> 
> And you could have done without cherrypicking my thread, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I really was trying to address your points without sludging through another one of your tiresome word clouds.
> 
> Again- If you want to be an effective writer, write like you are being paid by the point and penalized by the word.
> 
> Now, to your point, I'm really not fond of EITHER Party, and I split my ballot.  I usually vote for the person, not the party these days.
> 
> Unfortunately, the GOP keeps putting crazy people on the ballot, making it harder to vote for them.
> 
> But like it or not, Democrat and Republican ARE the ONLY games in town. I've seen dozens of "Third Parties" and they are fly by night operators that aren't around for long or just last forever at the fringe. The pragmatic thing is, one of these parties is going to win, and I have to make a decision about which one is going to get me most of the things I wanted.
> 
> In 2008, I voted for McCain, even though I was so over the GOP. But he had experience, Obama didn't.
> 
> In 2012, I voted for Obama because Romney was an evil Mormon douchebag.
> 
> The lessor of two evils...
Click to expand...


Your first problem is that you vote.  Why vote for a corrupt system?


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> Your first problem is that you vote.  Why vote for a corrupt system?



Same reason I WORK.  It's a corrupt system, too, but things have to get done.  

Romney would have been, in my opinion, a horrible president.  The guy totally lacked compassion for "gentiles" (this is what Mormons call the rest of us when no one is listening). 

Obama, I think, is a weak leader, but his heart is in the right place, mostly.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Add this to the list of concepts that have gone over your head... this makes you the 5th person to prove my point.
> 
> Joe you reek of partisanship. According to what you've told me, when you got played by one party, you joined the other, now look at you. You will instantly vilify someone who you disagree with, and when confronted with facts, you counter with talking points. You don't ever stop to consider that you might be on the wrong side of an argument. You simply cannot grasp that you're being used. Has it ever occurred to you that you're letting your thoughts and opinions be dictated by what you perceive as political consensus within your party?
> 
> This is one of the main reasons I stopped playing this "Republican vs. Democrat" game. You've been consumed by partisanship and a politically motivated hatred.
> 
> And you could have done without cherrypicking my thread, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I really was trying to address your points without sludging through another one of your tiresome word clouds.
> 
> Again- If you want to be an effective writer, write like you are being paid by the point and penalized by the word.
> 
> Now, to your point, I'm really not fond of EITHER Party, and I split my ballot.  I usually vote for the person, not the party these days.
> 
> Unfortunately, the GOP keeps putting crazy people on the ballot, making it harder to vote for them.
> 
> But like it or not, Democrat and Republican ARE the ONLY games in town. I've seen dozens of "Third Parties" and they are fly by night operators that aren't around for long or just last forever at the fringe. The pragmatic thing is, one of these parties is going to win, and I have to make a decision about which one is going to get me most of the things I wanted.
> 
> In 2008, I voted for McCain, even though I was so over the GOP. But he had experience, Obama didn't.
> 
> In 2012, I voted for Obama because Romney was an evil Mormon douchebag.
> 
> The lessor of two evils...
Click to expand...


The lesser of two evils... precisely. Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. The fact you reject a third party means that opinion can only come from one of the two parties and not from a third. Such a myopic view of the political world. Since when must opinion be dictated by the two party system? Like it or not, anyone can contribute to political discourse. And thank you for proving me right... again. NOBODY has a monopoly on thought or opinion. 

And if you think my OP is a word cloud, you should see some of the essays I've written before I came here. They consist of anywhere between 5,000 to 7,500 words. Threads like these are child's play.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Your first problem is that you vote.  Why vote for a corrupt system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason I WORK.  It's a corrupt system, too, but things have to get done.
> 
> Romney would have been, in my opinion, a horrible president.  The guy totally lacked compassion for "gentiles" (this is what Mormons call the rest of us when no one is listening).
> 
> Obama, I think, is a weak leader, but his heart is in the right place, mostly.
Click to expand...


One has to work to support themselves.  Voting is supporting a corrupt system and it is entirely voluntary.


----------



## TemplarKormac

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Your first problem is that you vote.  Why vote for a corrupt system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason I WORK.  It's a corrupt system, too, but things have to get done.
> 
> Romney would have been, in my opinion, a horrible president.  The guy totally lacked compassion for "gentiles" (this is what Mormons call the rest of us when no one is listening).
> 
> Obama, I think, is a weak leader, but his heart is in the right place, mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has to work to support themselves.  Voting is supporting a corrupt system and it is entirely voluntary.
Click to expand...


The system is only corrupt if the people supporting it are corrupt. It can also be corrupt if the people running it are corrupt. Voting wisely and not blindly could remedy that.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> The lesser of two evils... precisely. Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. The fact you reject a third party means that opinion can only come from one of the two parties and not from a third. Such a myopic view of the political world. Since when must opinion be dictated by the two party system? Like it or not, anyone can contribute to political discourse. And thank you for proving me right... again. NOBODY has a monopoly on thought or opinion.
> 
> And if you think my OP is a word cloud, you should see some of the essays I've written before I came here. They consist of anywhere between 5,000 to 7,500 words. Threads like these are child's play.



Guy, there are only TWO parties that had enough members, resources and abilities to get things done.  

And frankly, I would be a lot more worried if we did have a European style system where some party that only gets 5% of the vote can bring down governments.  If you want to see what five party democracy looks like, look at Italy.  what a clusterfuck.  

The problem is not that the two parties are "evil", it's that they are unable to comprimise and get the job done.  And this is mostly because their own voters won't forgive them if they do.  

Now, if the LIbertarians want to take their toys and go home and get their 1% of the vote, I'm fine with that.  

My problem is the GOP keeps pandering to their crazy because Ron Paul brings in a bunch of college kids who hope he'll legalize pot for them.  "Wow, dude, I am so high that Ayn Rand is starting to make sense!"


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Your first problem is that you vote.  Why vote for a corrupt system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason I WORK.  It's a corrupt system, too, but things have to get done.
> 
> Romney would have been, in my opinion, a horrible president.  The guy totally lacked compassion for "gentiles" (this is what Mormons call the rest of us when no one is listening).
> 
> Obama, I think, is a weak leader, but his heart is in the right place, mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has to work to support themselves.  Voting is supporting a corrupt system and it is entirely voluntary.
Click to expand...


No, guy, the roads still have to get paved, the snow still has to get plowed, the lights still need to get fixed, and the kids still need to be educated.  

Voting is picking the guy who is best able to get those things done.   Period.


----------



## JoeB131

Building on my previous statement, let's look at snow. 

My first real exposure to politics was in the winter of 1979.  Mayor Bilandic was in charge of the Chicago Machine, and he looked like a shoo-in for re-election in 1979 after he had finished the unused part of the first Mayor Daley's term.  

He was being challenged by Jane Byrne, a disgruntled city employee he fired.  And no one took her terribly seriously.  

Then the winter hit, and we got a record amount of snow.  And we found that lots of people couldn't even get to work or school because the streets were impassible. In the last days before the primary in February, he panicked and sent out snow plows to try to clear the streets,and ended up damaging a lot of cars because they were in a hurry. 

In short, we made a choice. Bilandic couldn't get the job done, so they elected Byrne.  And although we had a series of mayors since then, guess what they all make sure works right.  

Snow removal.  You get those trucks on the street if you know snow is coming.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The lesser of two evils... precisely. Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. The fact you reject a third party means that opinion can only come from one of the two parties and not from a third. Such a myopic view of the political world. Since when must opinion be dictated by the two party system? Like it or not, anyone can contribute to political discourse. And thank you for proving me right... again. NOBODY has a monopoly on thought or opinion.
> 
> And if you think my OP is a word cloud, you should see some of the essays I've written before I came here. They consist of anywhere between 5,000 to 7,500 words. Threads like these are child's play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, there are only TWO parties that had enough members, resources and abilities to get things done.
> 
> And frankly, I would be a lot more worried if we did have a European style system where some party that only gets 5% of the vote can bring down governments.  If you want to see what five party democracy looks like, look at Italy.  what a clusterfuck.
> 
> The problem is not that the two parties are "evil", it's that they are unable to comprimise and get the job done.  And this is mostly because their own voters won't forgive them if they do.
> 
> Now, if the LIbertarians want to take their toys and go home and get their 1% of the vote, I'm fine with that.
> 
> My problem is the GOP keeps pandering to their crazy because Ron Paul brings in a bunch of college kids who hope he'll legalize pot for them.  "Wow, dude, I am so high that Ayn Rand is starting to make sense!"
Click to expand...


Do the Democrats not "pander" too? Your opinions of libertarians come from stereotypes fed you by both Republicans and Democrats. Telling someone their opinion and vote don't matter because they don't belong to one of the two parties is exactly why I wrote this thread. Your responses are QED, Joe.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason I WORK.  It's a corrupt system, too, but things have to get done.
> 
> Romney would have been, in my opinion, a horrible president.  The guy totally lacked compassion for "gentiles" (this is what Mormons call the rest of us when no one is listening).
> 
> Obama, I think, is a weak leader, but his heart is in the right place, mostly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One has to work to support themselves.  Voting is supporting a corrupt system and it is entirely voluntary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, guy, the roads still have to get paved, the snow still has to get plowed, the lights still need to get fixed, and the kids still need to be educated.
> 
> Voting is picking the guy who is best able to get those things done.   Period.
Click to expand...


A guy can say he is capable of doing those things, but when he gets in office he never does them. Voting is picking the guy who has the reputation of getting them done, not the one who says he can get them done. Talk is cheap.

People made roads, plowed snow, and derived their own sources of energy without having to get the government involved. Who will do all of these things? The people will, and not necessarily at the behest of an elected official.


----------



## gipper

TemplarKormac said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason I WORK.  It's a corrupt system, too, but things have to get done.
> 
> Romney would have been, in my opinion, a horrible president.  The guy totally lacked compassion for "gentiles" (this is what Mormons call the rest of us when no one is listening).
> 
> Obama, I think, is a weak leader, but his heart is in the right place, mostly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One has to work to support themselves.  Voting is supporting a corrupt system and it is entirely voluntary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The system is only corrupt if the people supporting it are corrupt. It can also be corrupt if the people running it are corrupt. Voting wisely and not blindly could remedy that.
Click to expand...


It could remedy the problem, but will not not because both parties are corrupt and both parties control the voting process.  It is a big scam.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason I WORK.  It's a corrupt system, too, but things have to get done.
> 
> Romney would have been, in my opinion, a horrible president.  The guy totally lacked compassion for "gentiles" (this is what Mormons call the rest of us when no one is listening).
> 
> Obama, I think, is a weak leader, but his heart is in the right place, mostly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One has to work to support themselves.  Voting is supporting a corrupt system and it is entirely voluntary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, guy, the roads still have to get paved, the snow still has to get plowed, the lights still need to get fixed, and the kids still need to be educated.
> 
> Voting is picking the guy who is best able to get those things done.   Period.
Click to expand...


You are confusing local government issues with the national government.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> Do the Democrats not "pander" too? Your opinions of libertarians come from stereotypes fed you by both Republicans and Democrats. Telling someone their opinion and vote don't matter because they don't belong to one of the two parties is exactly why I wrote this thread. Your responses are QED, Joe.



No, guy, my opinions of libertarians are kind of like my opinions of gun nuts.  

The best argument against them is just letting them talk.


----------



## TemplarKormac

gipper said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One has to work to support themselves.  Voting is supporting a corrupt system and it is entirely voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The system is only corrupt if the people supporting it are corrupt. It can also be corrupt if the people running it are corrupt. Voting wisely and not blindly could remedy that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could remedy the problem, but will not not because both parties are corrupt and both parties control the voting process.  It is a big scam.
Click to expand...


I am forced to agree.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Do the Democrats not "pander" too? Your opinions of libertarians come from stereotypes fed you by both Republicans and Democrats. Telling someone their opinion and vote don't matter because they don't belong to one of the two parties is exactly why I wrote this thread. Your responses are QED, Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, my opinions of libertarians are kind of like my opinions of gun nuts.
> 
> The best argument against them is just letting them talk.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you let them talk because you can't refute them. Nice cop out, mister.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> A guy can say he is capable of doing those things, but when he gets in office he never does them. Voting is picking the guy who has the reputation of getting them done, not the one who says he can get them done. Talk is cheap.
> 
> People made roads, plowed snow, and derived their own sources of energy without having to get the government involved. Who will do all of these things? The people will, and not necessarily at the behest of an elected official.



Yeah, guy... try building a road without a government grant.  You know who gave us an interstate highway system?  Eisenhower, after he saw how well the ones the Germans had worked. 

Here's the real problem. The GOP with its "Starve the Beast" mentality of making sure no Dressage Horsie is left behind is why our roads are in such shitty shape.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Do the Democrats not "pander" too? Your opinions of libertarians come from stereotypes fed you by both Republicans and Democrats. Telling someone their opinion and vote don't matter because they don't belong to one of the two parties is exactly why I wrote this thread. Your responses are QED, Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, my opinions of libertarians are kind of like my opinions of gun nuts.
> 
> The best argument against them is just letting them talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you let them talk because you can't refute them. Nice cop out, mister.
Click to expand...


No, guy, when they talk, they usually expose themselves as unrealistic and sometimes outright nuts.  

One more time. If Libertarianism was the bees knees, why is there not ONE Libertarian Government in the world today.  

Well, Somalia maybe..


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, my opinions of libertarians are kind of like my opinions of gun nuts.
> 
> The best argument against them is just letting them talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you let them talk because you can't refute them. Nice cop out, mister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, guy, when they talk, they usually expose themselves as unrealistic and sometimes outright nuts.
> 
> One more time. If Libertarianism was the bees knees, why is there not ONE Libertarian Government in the world today.
> 
> Well, Somalia maybe..
Click to expand...


I will take libertarian government over your acceptance of big centralized statist government every time.

And to your question, the answer is easy.  The power elite throughout the world dislikes libertarian government for obvious reasons.  The fact that you can't see that, reflects poorly on you.


----------



## SwimExpert

thanatos144 said:


> Lol confederates were democrats



They were also white.  Does that make today's white people racist?


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederates were first and foremost conservative reactionaries, just like the Southern GOP and Dems who voted against Civil Rights a 104 years later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they teach you this bullshit in school now?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they ever teach you manners in school? Apparently not.
Click to expand...


Did they teach you  to be a dishonest f***?

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

SwimExpert said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol confederates were democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were also white.  Does that make today's white people racist?
Click to expand...


If they are Democrats yes. 

tapatalk post


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ty for negging me for my opinion, those things you say do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, the guy complains that people can't have an opinion anymore, then he negs you for yours! That's pretty fucking LAME!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a guy goes about making inflammatory remarks about the author, not even close to making opinions about the thread, yes he will be negged. Get over it.
Click to expand...


Hey, they're leftists.  They've spent their whole lives getting "Participation Trophies".  Now anything less than a standing ovation for their every breath is the equivalent of a Soviet gulag to them.


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, the guy complains that people can't have an opinion anymore, then he negs you for yours! That's pretty fucking LAME!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a guy goes about making inflammatory remarks about the author, not even close to making opinions about the thread, yes he will be negged. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, they're leftists.  They've spent their whole lives getting "Participation Trophies".  Now anything less than a standing ovation for their every breath is the equivalent of a Soviet gulag to them.
Click to expand...


you wish.


----------



## Cecilie1200

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Add this to the list of concepts that have gone over your head... this makes you the 5th person to prove my point.
> 
> Joe you reek of partisanship. According to what you've told me, when you got played by one party, you joined the other, now look at you. You will instantly vilify someone who you disagree with, and when confronted with facts, you counter with talking points. You don't ever stop to consider that you might be on the wrong side of an argument. You simply cannot grasp that you're being used. Has it ever occurred to you that you're letting your thoughts and opinions be dictated by what you perceive as political consensus within your party?
> 
> This is one of the main reasons I stopped playing this "Republican vs. Democrat" game. You've been consumed by partisanship and a politically motivated hatred.
> 
> And you could have done without cherrypicking my thread, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I really was trying to address your points without sludging through another one of your tiresome word clouds.
> 
> Again- If you want to be an effective writer, write like you are being paid by the point and penalized by the word.
> 
> Now, to your point, I'm really not fond of EITHER Party, and I split my ballot.  I usually vote for the person, not the party these days.
> 
> Unfortunately, the GOP keeps putting crazy people on the ballot, making it harder to vote for them.
> 
> But like it or not, Democrat and Republican ARE the ONLY games in town. I've seen dozens of "Third Parties" and they are fly by night operators that aren't around for long or just last forever at the fringe. The pragmatic thing is, one of these parties is going to win, and I have to make a decision about which one is going to get me most of the things I wanted.
> 
> In 2008, I voted for McCain, even though I was so over the GOP. But he had experience, Obama didn't.
> 
> In 2012, I voted for Obama because Romney was an evil Mormon douchebag.
> 
> The lessor of two evils...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first problem is that you vote.  Why vote for a corrupt system?
Click to expand...


What do you accomplish by NOT participating in the system until it's absolutely perfect (which it never will be as long as there are people involved)?


----------



## Cecilie1200

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Your first problem is that you vote.  Why vote for a corrupt system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason I WORK.  It's a corrupt system, too, but things have to get done.
> 
> Romney would have been, in my opinion, a horrible president.  The guy totally lacked compassion for "gentiles" (this is what Mormons call the rest of us when no one is listening).
> 
> Obama, I think, is a weak leader, but his heart is in the right place, mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has to work to support themselves.  Voting is supporting a corrupt system and it is entirely voluntary.
Click to expand...


While opting to sit on the sidelines and feel smug and superior can ALSO be seen as supporting a corrupt system, by way of doing nothing to change it.  "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a guy goes about making inflammatory remarks about the author, not even close to making opinions about the thread, yes he will be negged. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, they're leftists.  They've spent their whole lives getting "Participation Trophies".  Now anything less than a standing ovation for their every breath is the equivalent of a Soviet gulag to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you wish.
Click to expand...


Brilliant riposte.  I am left speechless by your stunning wit.


----------



## gipper

Cecilie1200 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason I WORK.  It's a corrupt system, too, but things have to get done.
> 
> Romney would have been, in my opinion, a horrible president.  The guy totally lacked compassion for "gentiles" (this is what Mormons call the rest of us when no one is listening).
> 
> Obama, I think, is a weak leader, but his heart is in the right place, mostly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One has to work to support themselves.  Voting is supporting a corrupt system and it is entirely voluntary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While opting to sit on the sidelines and feel smug and superior can ALSO be seen as supporting a corrupt system, by way of doing nothing to change it.  "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
Click to expand...


Not smug...but saddened.  

Voting does not change anything.  This is certainly evident based on recent history.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they teach you this bullshit in school now?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they ever teach you manners in school? Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they teach you  to be a dishonest f***?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Uh... no. Your brutish ripostes tell me everything I need to know. You are an automaton. Programmed partisan to the core. Good day sir.


----------



## Kosh

gipper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One has to work to support themselves.  Voting is supporting a corrupt system and it is entirely voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While opting to sit on the sidelines and feel smug and superior can ALSO be seen as supporting a corrupt system, by way of doing nothing to change it.  "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not smug...but saddened.
> 
> Voting does not change anything.  This is certainly evident based on recent history.
Click to expand...


I think I understand where you are coming from.

It is like does your vote really count if you live in a solid blue state and vote republican or if you live in a solid red state and vote Democrat.

Although I do think the broader point may be that no matter who you vote for, not much changes.

I went back and watched the Reagan/Carter debates before the 2012 elections and seen that we are still in the same place as we were then with same problems. Not much has changed in the last 30+ years.

I think I can understand, but I have always seen things that way when it comes to Washington, on the local level I have seen plenty of changes some good some bad. I do know (at least in my area) voting the right people does make a huge difference, maybe not so much in Washington.


----------



## LoneLaugher

TemplarKormac said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> TK,
> 
> Help us out here.
> 
> What can we do to abandon our sheepish ways like you have? In a matter of a few years, you have shed yourself of the "party at all costs" mentality and become a truly independent thinker. While you were once a staight up GOP stooge....you are now a man who beats to his own drum. Very admirable.
> 
> What steps did you take to bring about that change? Can you articulate them? Can you credit anyone or any thing with encouraging this growth? The rest of us would like to see if we can benefit in a similar manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, lets see how I can put this succinctly, if I can:
> 
> I refused to be led by the hand. Instead of succumbing to all the propaganda I heard from the left or right wing pundits, I began living a fact based existence. Reality isn't something that comes from the mouths of men in suits and ties. It can't be dictated. I sought objectivity. I accepted the fact that not all facts conform to the left or right wing paradigm. Reality has no bias.
> 
> I dropped the two party system cold turkey. After the 2012 election, I chose not to be a pawn anymore. I wanted my mind back. I wanted to think freely and learn freely, without the constraints of having my world interpreted through red or blue tint. I grew tired of the partisanship in politics. A friend of mine in Wisconsin whom I've known since 2007 can be credited with encouraging me to think for myself, he himself is a libertarian and went through a similar change.
> 
> It was so bad at one point, I hung on every word Glenn Beck had to say. I reacted hostilely to differing points of view. Beck is a wise man, but sometimes he is a bit paranoid and eccentric. I learned not to worship at the feet of my favorite guy. I began understanding that it simply doesn't pay to idolize political figures, politicians or presidents.
> 
> All it boils down to is determination. Seek out the reality of things, even if it doesn't jive with the party you support. Don't take everything you hear for granted, research, fact check, double check. It never hurts to dig for facts or look behind someone to see if they are genuine. Above everything else, seek absolute truth and settle for no substitute. Research the claims people make, don't be afraid to call them out if they are wrong. Employ logical reasoning, don't run from a challenge.
> 
> Honesty and integrity is key. If you want to be taken seriously (yes it's a bit cliche) you have to be honest and consistent. Take this forum for example: I thrive on making factual arguments, I try not to make anecdotal arguments, while trying to employ logic and corroborating evidence.  The reason my responses are so long winded is because I take the time to think out my replies, I do research, if the facts don't back my claim, I avoid making it. As you have no doubt witnessed firsthand, admitting when you're wrong helps you to learn. I assimilate superior points of view to my own and adopt them.
> 
> Don't be afraid to call other members of your party out for being dishonest or disingenuous. As with with thanatos, Katz, Deltex, bigreb and others, I wasn't afraid to go head to head with them. If you want a good example of that, look for my responses in the Nelson Mandela threads to other conservatives on this board.
Click to expand...


You mean I have not been leading a fact-based existence all these years? How do I go about that fact checking....and going behind someone to see if they are being genuine? I can never tell. 

Man, this all seems so time consuming and requires so much attention to detail. How can I ever find the time needed? I want to be taken seriously too! I am going to try going head to head with someone who I normally align with also, too. Lets see if they can deal with that!


----------



## BDBoop

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Do the Democrats not "pander" too? Your opinions of libertarians come from stereotypes fed you by both Republicans and Democrats. Telling someone their opinion and vote don't matter because they don't belong to one of the two parties is exactly why I wrote this thread. Your responses are QED, Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, my opinions of libertarians are kind of like my opinions of gun nuts.
> 
> The best argument against them is just letting them talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you let them talk because you can't refute them. Nice cop out, mister.
Click to expand...


Nobody can refute you. I've noticed that as well.

Even when they do refute you? You claim that they failed. Like the arrogant thing. Nobody can prove you're arrogant, so you're not.


----------



## BDBoop

LoneLaugher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> TK,
> 
> Help us out here.
> 
> What can we do to abandon our sheepish ways like you have? In a matter of a few years, you have shed yourself of the "party at all costs" mentality and become a truly independent thinker. While you were once a staight up GOP stooge....you are now a man who beats to his own drum. Very admirable.
> 
> What steps did you take to bring about that change? Can you articulate them? Can you credit anyone or any thing with encouraging this growth? The rest of us would like to see if we can benefit in a similar manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, lets see how I can put this succinctly, if I can:
> 
> I refused to be led by the hand. Instead of succumbing to all the propaganda I heard from the left or right wing pundits, I began living a fact based existence. Reality isn't something that comes from the mouths of men in suits and ties. It can't be dictated. I sought objectivity. I accepted the fact that not all facts conform to the left or right wing paradigm. Reality has no bias.
> 
> I dropped the two party system cold turkey. After the 2012 election, I chose not to be a pawn anymore. I wanted my mind back. I wanted to think freely and learn freely, without the constraints of having my world interpreted through red or blue tint. I grew tired of the partisanship in politics. A friend of mine in Wisconsin whom I've known since 2007 can be credited with encouraging me to think for myself, he himself is a libertarian and went through a similar change.
> 
> It was so bad at one point, I hung on every word Glenn Beck had to say. I reacted hostilely to differing points of view. Beck is a wise man, but sometimes he is a bit paranoid and eccentric. I learned not to worship at the feet of my favorite guy. I began understanding that it simply doesn't pay to idolize political figures, politicians or presidents.
> 
> All it boils down to is determination. Seek out the reality of things, even if it doesn't jive with the party you support. Don't take everything you hear for granted, research, fact check, double check. It never hurts to dig for facts or look behind someone to see if they are genuine. Above everything else, seek absolute truth and settle for no substitute. Research the claims people make, don't be afraid to call them out if they are wrong. Employ logical reasoning, don't run from a challenge.
> 
> Honesty and integrity is key. If you want to be taken seriously (yes it's a bit cliche) you have to be honest and consistent. Take this forum for example: I thrive on making factual arguments, I try not to make anecdotal arguments, while trying to employ logic and corroborating evidence.  The reason my responses are so long winded is because I take the time to think out my replies, I do research, if the facts don't back my claim, I avoid making it. As you have no doubt witnessed firsthand, admitting when you're wrong helps you to learn. I assimilate superior points of view to my own and adopt them.
> 
> Don't be afraid to call other members of your party out for being dishonest or disingenuous. As with with thanatos, Katz, Deltex, bigreb and others, I wasn't afraid to go head to head with them. If you want a good example of that, look for my responses in the Nelson Mandela threads to other conservatives on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean I have not been leading a fact-based existence all these years? How do I go about that fact checking....and going behind someone to see if they are being genuine? I can never tell.
> 
> Man, this all seems so time consuming and requires so much attention to detail. How can I ever find the time needed? I want to be taken seriously too! I am going to try going head to head with someone who I normally align with also, too. Lets see if they can deal with that!
Click to expand...


Try it, moron. You're just as bad as TK.


----------



## LoneLaugher

BDBoop said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, lets see how I can put this succinctly, if I can:
> 
> I refused to be led by the hand. Instead of succumbing to all the propaganda I heard from the left or right wing pundits, I began living a fact based existence. Reality isn't something that comes from the mouths of men in suits and ties. It can't be dictated. I sought objectivity. I accepted the fact that not all facts conform to the left or right wing paradigm. Reality has no bias.
> 
> I dropped the two party system cold turkey. After the 2012 election, I chose not to be a pawn anymore. I wanted my mind back. I wanted to think freely and learn freely, without the constraints of having my world interpreted through red or blue tint. I grew tired of the partisanship in politics. A friend of mine in Wisconsin whom I've known since 2007 can be credited with encouraging me to think for myself, he himself is a libertarian and went through a similar change.
> 
> It was so bad at one point, I hung on every word Glenn Beck had to say. I reacted hostilely to differing points of view. Beck is a wise man, but sometimes he is a bit paranoid and eccentric. I learned not to worship at the feet of my favorite guy. I began understanding that it simply doesn't pay to idolize political figures, politicians or presidents.
> 
> All it boils down to is determination. Seek out the reality of things, even if it doesn't jive with the party you support. Don't take everything you hear for granted, research, fact check, double check. It never hurts to dig for facts or look behind someone to see if they are genuine. Above everything else, seek absolute truth and settle for no substitute. Research the claims people make, don't be afraid to call them out if they are wrong. Employ logical reasoning, don't run from a challenge.
> 
> Honesty and integrity is key. If you want to be taken seriously (yes it's a bit cliche) you have to be honest and consistent. Take this forum for example: I thrive on making factual arguments, I try not to make anecdotal arguments, while trying to employ logic and corroborating evidence.  The reason my responses are so long winded is because I take the time to think out my replies, I do research, if the facts don't back my claim, I avoid making it. As you have no doubt witnessed firsthand, admitting when you're wrong helps you to learn. I assimilate superior points of view to my own and adopt them.
> 
> Don't be afraid to call other members of your party out for being dishonest or disingenuous. As with with thanatos, Katz, Deltex, bigreb and others, I wasn't afraid to go head to head with them. If you want a good example of that, look for my responses in the Nelson Mandela threads to other conservatives on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean I have not been leading a fact-based existence all these years? How do I go about that fact checking....and going behind someone to see if they are being genuine? I can never tell.
> 
> Man, this all seems so time consuming and requires so much attention to detail. How can I ever find the time needed? I want to be taken seriously too! I am going to try going head to head with someone who I normally align with also, too. Lets see if they can deal with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try it, moron. You're just as bad as TK.
Click to expand...


Huh? I don't understand.


----------



## BDBoop

LoneLaugher said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean I have not been leading a fact-based existence all these years? How do I go about that fact checking....and going behind someone to see if they are being genuine? I can never tell.
> 
> Man, this all seems so time consuming and requires so much attention to detail. How can I ever find the time needed? I want to be taken seriously too! I am going to try going head to head with someone who I normally align with also, too. Lets see if they can deal with that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try it, moron. You're just as bad as TK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? I don't understand.
Click to expand...


Neither does he. 

Ever. So good luck with that.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they ever teach you manners in school? Apparently not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach you  to be a dishonest f***?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... no. Your brutish ripostes tell me everything I need to know. You are an automaton. Programmed partisan to the core. Good day sir.
Click to expand...


I am not lying about who I am so I can sabotage a primary. Your as bad as Fakie

tapatalk post


----------



## TemplarKormac

BDBoop said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, my opinions of libertarians are kind of like my opinions of gun nuts.
> 
> The best argument against them is just letting them talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you let them talk because you can't refute them. Nice cop out, mister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody can refute you. I've noticed that as well.
> 
> Even when they do refute you? You claim that they failed. Like the arrogant thing. Nobody can prove you're arrogant, so you're not.
Click to expand...


You can stop calling me arrogant now. Frankly, you've been quite confrontational with me lately. And why did you feel the need to lash out at LL? Hmm? LL has a genuine curiosity, are you going to begrudge him/her of that? Does that kind of behavior not prove the point of my thread? Whats worse than suppressing thought is suppressing natural curiosity. 

I've done nothing to you. I've frankly done nothing to provoke you. But in my world, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. You can keep calling me arrogant, but unless you have evidence, it is nothing more than mundane and childish name calling. 

If I'm arrogant. Prove it. I implore you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach you  to be a dishonest f***?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... no. Your brutish ripostes tell me everything I need to know. You are an automaton. Programmed partisan to the core. Good day sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not lying about who I am so I can sabotage a primary. Your as bad as Fakie
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


That sir crossed a line. I don't make a habit of sabotaging free thought, as both parties have done. Would I lie about being a libertarian given how poorly they're viewed? Sorry bub, until you get to know me, you aren't allowed to judge me.


----------



## TemplarKormac

LoneLaugher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> TK,
> 
> Help us out here.
> 
> What can we do to abandon our sheepish ways like you have? In a matter of a few years, you have shed yourself of the "party at all costs" mentality and become a truly independent thinker. While you were once a staight up GOP stooge....you are now a man who beats to his own drum. Very admirable.
> 
> What steps did you take to bring about that change? Can you articulate them? Can you credit anyone or any thing with encouraging this growth? The rest of us would like to see if we can benefit in a similar manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, lets see how I can put this succinctly, if I can:
> 
> I refused to be led by the hand. Instead of succumbing to all the propaganda I heard from the left or right wing pundits, I began living a fact based existence. Reality isn't something that comes from the mouths of men in suits and ties. It can't be dictated. I sought objectivity. I accepted the fact that not all facts conform to the left or right wing paradigm. Reality has no bias.
> 
> I dropped the two party system cold turkey. After the 2012 election, I chose not to be a pawn anymore. I wanted my mind back. I wanted to think freely and learn freely, without the constraints of having my world interpreted through red or blue tint. I grew tired of the partisanship in politics. A friend of mine in Wisconsin whom I've known since 2007 can be credited with encouraging me to think for myself, he himself is a libertarian and went through a similar change.
> 
> It was so bad at one point, I hung on every word Glenn Beck had to say. I reacted hostilely to differing points of view. Beck is a wise man, but sometimes he is a bit paranoid and eccentric. I learned not to worship at the feet of my favorite guy. I began understanding that it simply doesn't pay to idolize political figures, politicians or presidents.
> 
> All it boils down to is determination. Seek out the reality of things, even if it doesn't jive with the party you support. Don't take everything you hear for granted, research, fact check, double check. It never hurts to dig for facts or look behind someone to see if they are genuine. Above everything else, seek absolute truth and settle for no substitute. Research the claims people make, don't be afraid to call them out if they are wrong. Employ logical reasoning, don't run from a challenge.
> 
> Honesty and integrity is key. If you want to be taken seriously (yes it's a bit cliche) you have to be honest and consistent. Take this forum for example: I thrive on making factual arguments, I try not to make anecdotal arguments, while trying to employ logic and corroborating evidence.  The reason my responses are so long winded is because I take the time to think out my replies, I do research, if the facts don't back my claim, I avoid making it. As you have no doubt witnessed firsthand, admitting when you're wrong helps you to learn. I assimilate superior points of view to my own and adopt them.
> 
> Don't be afraid to call other members of your party out for being dishonest or disingenuous. As with with thanatos, Katz, Deltex, bigreb and others, I wasn't afraid to go head to head with them. If you want a good example of that, look for my responses in the Nelson Mandela threads to other conservatives on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean I have not been leading a fact-based existence all these years? How do I go about that fact checking....and going behind someone to see if they are being genuine? I can never tell.
> 
> Man, this all seems so time consuming and requires so much attention to detail. How can I ever find the time needed? I want to be taken seriously too! I am going to try going head to head with someone who I normally align with also, too. Lets see if they can deal with that!
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION]

Perhaps we should discuss this in private. You have a natural curiosity that shouldn't be quelled by the selfish intentions of others. PM me.


----------



## TemplarKormac

LoneLaugher said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean I have not been leading a fact-based existence all these years? How do I go about that fact checking....and going behind someone to see if they are being genuine? I can never tell.
> 
> Man, this all seems so time consuming and requires so much attention to detail. How can I ever find the time needed? I want to be taken seriously too! I am going to try going head to head with someone who I normally align with also, too. Lets see if they can deal with that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try it, moron. You're just as bad as TK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? I don't understand.
Click to expand...


And don't you think that was a bit excessive, BD? Who are you to tell LL what he can and cannot do with his mind? Who are you to suddenly bully him into relenting when he decides to branch out?

"Try it moron. You're just as bad as TK." Wonderful. 

Case in point.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Gee, thanks, TK!  I was so taken aback by BD's harsh comments...I had to take a break.


----------



## BDBoop

LoneLaugher said:


> Gee, thanks, TK!  I was so taken aback by BD's harsh comments...I had to take a break.


----------



## BDBoop

I apologize LL. I've been in a horrible mood for days. This isn't about you.


----------



## JoeB131

Why do I get the feeling that Templar's "disenchantment" with the GOP is rooted in he showed up at a GOP rally, started reading his Ayn Rand nonsense, and the local party regulars, who are mostly just interested in keeping offices like Forest Preserve Board and County Assessor in GOP hands looked at him like he was some kind of mutant? 

Sorry, dude, that's politics.  You get to make policies by winning elections and holding offices.


----------



## Mac1958

Kosh said:


> I went back and watched the Reagan/Carter debates before the 2012 elections and seen that we are still in the same place as we were then with same problems. Not much has changed in the last 30+ years.




This is interesting, could you expand?  When you say "with the same problems", do you mean in terms of what the country is facing or in terms of the behavior of our so-called "leaders"?

On one hand, I guess it would be a little comforting to know that DC is no more dysfunctional than then, but on the other it's hard to see how that could be.  All I see, at least for the most part, is a bunch of narcissistic liars running around trying to out-lie each other.

.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd..........dead.


----------



## Wake

> 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.
> 
> 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."



'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV


Reading this, I feel this the same kind of drama that some liberal media is known for. Wasn't there outcry from some liberals when Miss California was also asked her honest opinion? In my opinion, GLAAD is becoming the obnoxious drama queen that everyone wants to ignore, and it is hurting the image of homosexuals as a group.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.


----------



## Wake

TheOldSchool said:


> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.



The show is pretty good. 

It's just so stupid how some of these people ask a man what he believes (when they know darn well what he believes) and then when he gives his honest answer they then fly upon him in a wicked rage and try to destroy his livelihood. I don't read the Bible much, but my memory tells me there was a word for people like that in it.

Mr. Robertson has an opinion, and Americans should be allowed to have one without the threat of their livelihoods being ravaged. All for giving an honest opinion when asked.


----------



## Moonglow

TheOldSchool said:


> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.



All the knee slappin' humor of a beaver in a trap.


----------



## Moonglow

Wake said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The show is pretty good.
> 
> It's just so stupid how some of these people ask a man what he believes (when they know darn well what he believes) and then when he gives his honest answer they then fly upon him in a wicked rage and try to destroy his livelihood. I don't read the Bible much, but my memory tells me there was a word for people like that in it.
> 
> Mr. Robertson has an opinion, and Americans should be allowed to have one without the threat of their livelihoods being ravaged. All for giving an honest opinion when asked.
Click to expand...


Try that with your wife, boss or anyone in a position of authority.


----------



## martybegan

Moonglow said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the knee slappin' humor of a beaver in a trap.
Click to expand...


Prepared properly, beaver is good eatin.


----------



## Moonglow

martybegan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the knee slappin' humor of a beaver in a trap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prepared properly, beaver is good eatin.
Click to expand...


The humor is in the hat made from the pelt.


----------



## TheOldSchool

martybegan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the knee slappin' humor of a beaver in a trap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prepared properly, beaver is good eatin.
Click to expand...


Good lord I'm resisting so many inappropriate jokes right now


----------



## Katzndogz

The Robertson family is immune from being under fire.   Phil Robertson just told Barbara Walters to take her interview and stick it.  He's going hunting.


----------



## Wake

Moonglow said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The show is pretty good.
> 
> It's just so stupid how some of these people ask a man what he believes (when they know darn well what he believes) and then when he gives his honest answer they then fly upon him in a wicked rage and try to destroy his livelihood. I don't read the Bible much, but my memory tells me there was a word for people like that in it.
> 
> Mr. Robertson has an opinion, and Americans should be allowed to have one without the threat of their livelihoods being ravaged. All for giving an honest opinion when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try that with your wife, boss or anyone in a position of authority.
Click to expand...


What point are you meaning to convey, please? That people shouldn't share their opinions with their spouses, bosses, or people in positions of authority? It seems like an unrelated tangent on your part, because these people haranguing Mr. Robertson are none of those you've mentioned.


----------



## Wake

I find his honesty refreshing.

America needs more of that.


----------



## Katzndogz

Moonglow said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The show is pretty good.
> 
> It's just so stupid how some of these people ask a man what he believes (when they know darn well what he believes) and then when he gives his honest answer they then fly upon him in a wicked rage and try to destroy his livelihood. I don't read the Bible much, but my memory tells me there was a word for people like that in it.
> 
> Mr. Robertson has an opinion, and Americans should be allowed to have one without the threat of their livelihoods being ravaged. All for giving an honest opinion when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try that with your wife, boss or anyone in a position of authority.
Click to expand...


There is no one in that type of position of authority over Phil Robertson.


----------



## Moonglow

TheOldSchool said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the knee slappin' humor of a beaver in a trap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prepared properly, beaver is good eatin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good lord I'm resisting so many inappropriate jokes right now
Click to expand...


I am trying to leave the beaver open to comments.


----------



## Moonglow

Katzndogz said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> The show is pretty good.
> 
> It's just so stupid how some of these people ask a man what he believes (when they know darn well what he believes) and then when he gives his honest answer they then fly upon him in a wicked rage and try to destroy his livelihood. I don't read the Bible much, but my memory tells me there was a word for people like that in it.
> 
> Mr. Robertson has an opinion, and Americans should be allowed to have one without the threat of their livelihoods being ravaged. All for giving an honest opinion when asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try that with your wife, boss or anyone in a position of authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no one in that type of position of authority over Phil Robertson.
Click to expand...


can't he get a date?


----------



## bodecea

Wake said:


> 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.
> 
> 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."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV
> 
> 
> Reading this, I feel this the same kind of drama that some liberal media is known for. Wasn't there outcry from some liberals when Miss California was also asked her honest opinion? In my opinion, GLAAD is becoming the obnoxious drama queen that everyone wants to ignore, and it is hurting the image of homosexuals as a group.
Click to expand...


It's not as if the Duck Dynasty stars' opinions are taken seriously.   If you do....considering the show and its angle....that would be pretty foolish.


----------



## Katzndogz

Wake said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> The show is pretty good.
> 
> It's just so stupid how some of these people ask a man what he believes (when they know darn well what he believes) and then when he gives his honest answer they then fly upon him in a wicked rage and try to destroy his livelihood. I don't read the Bible much, but my memory tells me there was a word for people like that in it.
> 
> Mr. Robertson has an opinion, and Americans should be allowed to have one without the threat of their livelihoods being ravaged. All for giving an honest opinion when asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try that with your wife, boss or anyone in a position of authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What point are you meaning to convey, please? That people shouldn't share their opinions with their spouses, bosses, or people in positions of authority? It seems like an unrelated tangent on your part, because these people haranguing Mr. Robertson are none of those you've mentioned.
Click to expand...


Miss Kay is hardly going to disagree with her husband.  He has no boss.  He owns the company.    Phil Robertson is a free man.  He is beholden to no one.  He doesn't care what liberals think.


----------



## bodecea

TheOldSchool said:


> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.



Yes, I actually watch it every once in a while to see what stupid thing they do next.


----------



## Moonglow

Wake said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> The show is pretty good.
> 
> It's just so stupid how some of these people ask a man what he believes (when they know darn well what he believes) and then when he gives his honest answer they then fly upon him in a wicked rage and try to destroy his livelihood. I don't read the Bible much, but my memory tells me there was a word for people like that in it.
> 
> Mr. Robertson has an opinion, and Americans should be allowed to have one without the threat of their livelihoods being ravaged. All for giving an honest opinion when asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try that with your wife, boss or anyone in a position of authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What point are you meaning to convey, please? That people shouldn't share their opinions with their spouses, bosses, or people in positions of authority? It seems like an unrelated tangent on your part, because these people haranguing Mr. Robertson are none of those you've mentioned.
Click to expand...


Mr. Robinson has already started back peddling.


----------



## Katzndogz

Of Robertson is back peddling, there's no evidence of it.

Unless you mean how he denounced himself in the Barbara Walters interview and back peddled from there.

Oh wait, that didn't happen.


----------



## martybegan

Katzndogz said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try that with your wife, boss or anyone in a position of authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What point are you meaning to convey, please? That people shouldn't share their opinions with their spouses, bosses, or people in positions of authority? It seems like an unrelated tangent on your part, because these people haranguing Mr. Robertson are none of those you've mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Miss Kay is hardly going to disagree with her husband.  He has no boss.  He owns the company.    Phil Robertson is a free man.  He is beholden to no one.  He doesn't care what liberals think.
Click to expand...


Plus I dont see the majority of his customer base really getting all butthurt (lol) over his comments.


----------



## Wake

Moonglow said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try that with your wife, boss or anyone in a position of authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What point are you meaning to convey, please? That people shouldn't share their opinions with their spouses, bosses, or people in positions of authority? It seems like an unrelated tangent on your part, because these people haranguing Mr. Robertson are none of those you've mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Robinson has already started back peddling.
Click to expand...


Please prove that.

...oh, did you mean this?



> We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job," he told the magazine. "We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus  whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"
> 
> "I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior," the TV star said in a statement released by A&E Wednesday. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."



If you consider that back-peddling, you might be mistaken.


----------



## Sallow

I watched it once.

They took a dead duck into a class room full of kids and gutted it.

Lovely guys.


----------



## Katzndogz

martybegan said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> What point are you meaning to convey, please? That people shouldn't share their opinions with their spouses, bosses, or people in positions of authority? It seems like an unrelated tangent on your part, because these people haranguing Mr. Robertson are none of those you've mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miss Kay is hardly going to disagree with her husband.  He has no boss.  He owns the company.    Phil Robertson is a free man.  He is beholden to no one.  He doesn't care what liberals think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plus I dont see the majority of his customer base really getting all butthurt (lol) over his comments.
Click to expand...


The Robertsons really don't care!  They are very wealthy, certainly don't live beyond their means, most of their food comes off the land anyway.  No household staff, no real luxuries.   The customer base is really hunters from all over the world.    They are in a perfect position to say I don't care what you think.


----------



## dannyboys

bodecea said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I actually watch it every once in a while to see what stupid thing they do next.
Click to expand...

Watching you right back pal.
Phil craps bigger than you.
It's a free country. Phil was asked his opinion and he expressed it. Simple.
Go fuck yourselves...........where all you LIBs like it best. Just wash it off afterwards OK?


----------



## Katzndogz

Sallow said:


> I watched it once.
> 
> They took a dead duck into a class room full of kids and gutted it.
> 
> Lovely guys.



It was a frog and Phil Robertson skinned it!   The children didn't look particularly traumatized.


----------



## Sallow

I liked the "Beverly Hill Billies" Better.

That..was a funny show.


----------



## Moonglow

Katzndogz said:


> Of Robertson is back peddling, there's no evidence of it.
> 
> Unless you mean how he denounced himself in the Barbara Walters interview and back peddled from there.
> 
> Oh wait, that didn't happen.



He released another statement about his comments to GQ mag.



> And it seems that the tide is already turning, considering the fact that once GLAAD issued its statement, Phil was quick to clarify  and soften his previous remarks.
> 
> "I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior," the TV star said in a statement released by A&E Wednesday. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."
> 
> And there you have it  at least for now. While Phil is standing by his opinions, he might be feeling a bit repentant about the way he originally stated them.



'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV


----------



## Moonglow

Sallow said:


> I liked the "Beverly Hill Billies" Better.
> 
> That..was a funny show.



Me too. The Duck boys are people I have grown up around and live by now, so nothing new on the antics.


----------



## Wake

@ #27.

I already quoted that. He's not back-peddling.


----------



## Spoonman

remember when people were entitled to their own opinions in America?  also kind of strange that the acceptable attitudes are, I don't like your opinion or perspctive on things so I am going to boycott and call for others to boycott your products or services. then in the next breath,  you don't like my opinions or perspectives but i am still going to force you to supply your products or services to me.  WTF is up with that?


----------



## Katzndogz

It's more like he is trying to point out that he was once at the bottom and chose Jesus as his savior.  Therefore it is possible for others to do so too.  There's no endorsement of homosexuality.   It's just more of the same "love the sinner, hate the sin" that so many have already said.


----------



## bodecea

dannyboys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I actually watch it every once in a while to see what stupid thing they do next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Watching you right back pal.
> Phil craps bigger than you.
> It's a free country. Phil was asked his opinion and he expressed it. Simple.
> Go fuck yourselves...........where all you LIBs like it best. Just wash it off afterwards OK?
Click to expand...


You seem upset.   Didn't say I didn't like the show...I actually do.   But if you don't think it's about showcasing some stupid situation (like when they bought a vineyard one week and didn't know what to do with it or when Uncle Si what riding on a quad on the trailer because someone had wicked farts in the RV)  then you are not very bright.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> remember when people were entitled to their own opinions in America?  also kind of strange that the acceptable attitudes are, I don't like your opinion or perspctive on things so I am going to boycott and call for others to boycott your products or services. then in the next breath,  you don't like my opinions or perspectives but i am still going to force you to supply your products or services to me.  WTF is up with that?



Boycott?   One can only buy so many duck callers, you know.


----------



## Wake

One of the comments in the article rings particularly loud:



> Put all religious implications aside and analyze this situation from a logical perspective. People who are against homosexuality have every right to speak their mind about it as much as those who support it. The media and most supporters of the homosexual lifestyle would have you believe that everyone is required to support it and anyone who doesn't is wrong. It is well within the legal rights of those who don't support the LGBT lifestyle to express their opinions. This is a terrible article and is too biased. I don't really watch Duck Dynasty but no one affiliated with the show should have to sever ties with the Robertson family.



This one, too:



> Phil is just as entitled to his opinion as is GLAAD. Boy, how I wish we lived in an America where there was freedom of speech. OOPS! Phil isn't forcing his way of thinking on anyone, he is just openly and honestly divulging his interpretation of the Christian Bible on that subject. It is not like he is a government that wants to eradicate homosexuals, or that he even said that he hated them. He said, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." That is Christian. I haven't met too many Christian preachers that say that homosexuality isn't a sin in the Bible.



Could I have your thoughts on these two quotes please?


----------



## mal

'Duck Dynasty' star makes anti-gay remarks - MSN TV News

^GLAAD is now the Authority on what "True Christians" are?...

We Live in Concerning Times.



peace...


----------



## Katzndogz

Duck Dynasty Merchandise & Duck Commander Gear | A&E Shop

Pages of stuff!   Also carried by Amazon and Khols.


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> remember when people were entitled to their own opinions in America?  also kind of strange that the acceptable attitudes are, I don't like your opinion or perspctive on things so I am going to boycott and call for others to boycott your products or services. then in the next breath,  you don't like my opinions or perspectives but i am still going to force you to supply your products or services to me.  WTF is up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boycott?   One can only buy so many duck callers, you know.
Click to expand...


Are you drunk already, Bodey?...



peace...


----------



## bodecea

Katzndogz said:


> Duck Dynasty Merchandise & Duck Commander Gear | A&E Shop
> 
> Pages of stuff!   Also carried by Amazon and Khols.



Cool...maybe some stuff for my cousins who hunt.


----------



## Moonglow

How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?


----------



## martybegan

Moonglow said:


> How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?



At what point does this guys opinion restrict the rights of individuals based on anything?

He's saying its wrong and sinful, nothing more.


----------



## Moonglow

Why hunt for ducks when you can raise and slaughter cheaper? Is it for food or just for the thrill of the kill?


----------



## bodecea

martybegan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point does this guys opinion restrict the rights of individuals based on anything?
> 
> He's saying its wrong and sinful, nothing more.
Click to expand...


I agree.....this should be no big thing....just consider the source, folks.


----------



## Moonglow

martybegan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point does this guys opinion restrict the rights of individuals based on anything?
> 
> He's saying its wrong and sinful, nothing more.
Click to expand...


it's not the opinion of one man I am talking about.


----------



## dannyboys

Of course the hilarious part is thanks to the LIB media the few people who haven't tuned in will. Way to go LIBs. We can always count on you to promote the REPs. Like the morons on MSNBS who run a non-stop "have you watched what happened on Fox last night" infomercial.


----------



## Katzndogz

Moonglow said:


> How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?



The same way we restrict rights based on mental disease or defect.   Sexual orientation is a right but behavior is not and we restrict behavior all the time.


----------



## Moonglow

Katzndogz said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we restrict rights based on mental disease or defect.   Sexual orientation is a right but behavior is not and we restrict behavior all the time.
Click to expand...


That is progressive when trying to legislate morality..


----------



## Delta4Embassy

As a bisexual I agree our inclination to being overly politically correct has gotten out of hand. Anyone who raises an eyebrow for this sort of thing needs to spend 5 minutes reading around on this website to develop a much-needed thicker skin. 

If we're going to have a 1st Amendment, some of us need to learn how to say "So what?"

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell


----------



## Katzndogz

Yet the libtards believe that morality should be legislated all the time.   They just want it to be their morality.     Some behavior is immoral.   Some behavior is a crime.  We criminalize behavior on a daily, hourly by the minute basis.   The morality of homosexuality is to be unquestioned but it is immoral to refuse to participate in a homosexual relationship.

If you really didn't want morality to be legislated, you would uphold the rights of gays to maintain their relationship and uphold the right of someone to speak out against it, refuse to bake a cake for their wedding and refuse to take their pictures.   That's not legislating morality.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

"How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?"

I always thought that was said to be ironic since that same document mentions slaves as only being 3/5ths a free person. I think they meant "All affluent white men." Notice women at that time couldn't vote or do much of anything else in addition to acknowledging slaves.


----------



## bodecea

Katzndogz said:


> *Yet the libtards believe that morality should be legislated all the time. *  They just want it to be their morality.     Some behavior is immoral.   Some behavior is a crime.  We criminalize behavior on a daily, hourly by the minute basis.   The morality of homosexuality is to be unquestioned but it is immoral to refuse to participate in a homosexual relationship.
> 
> If you really didn't want morality to be legislated, you would uphold the rights of gays to maintain their relationship and uphold the right of someone to speak out against it, refuse to bake a cake for their wedding and refuse to take their pictures.   That's not legislating morality.



Oh?  I don't think morality should be legislated at all....unless it is something that hurts others.....if it does, it's criminal behavior.   Like the saying, "I have a right to swing my arm.  But that right to swing my arm stops at your nose."


----------



## Political Junky

> "I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior," the TV star said in a statement released by A&E Wednesday. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."



********

I suspect his thinking now isn't all that different than before he found Jesus.


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet the libtards believe that morality should be legislated all the time. *  They just want it to be their morality.     Some behavior is immoral.   Some behavior is a crime.  We criminalize behavior on a daily, hourly by the minute basis.   The morality of homosexuality is to be unquestioned but it is immoral to refuse to participate in a homosexual relationship.
> 
> If you really didn't want morality to be legislated, you would uphold the rights of gays to maintain their relationship and uphold the right of someone to speak out against it, refuse to bake a cake for their wedding and refuse to take their pictures.   That's not legislating morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I don't think morality should be legislated at all....unless it is something that hurts others.....if it does, it's criminal behavior.   Like the saying, "I have a right to swing my arm.  But that right to swing my arm stops at your nose."
Click to expand...


You can be Charged for swinging at someone and not hitting them, Dipshit. 

Intimidation is not Legal.



peace...


----------



## mskafka

So, in a short period of time, they've....(aggravated I guess) Barbara Walters, Drew Magary, and Elizabeth Durand Streisand.  

As ineffective as it most certainly will be, let the smear campaign begin.  This isn't news; and this little stunt will probably and hopefully increase the number of viewers.  I'm not anti-gay, and I love the Robertsons.


----------



## bodecea

mskafka said:


> So, in a short period of time, they've....(aggravated I guess) Barbara Walters, Drew Magary, and Elizabeth Durand Streisand.
> 
> As ineffective as it most certainly will be, let the smear campaign begin.  This isn't news; and this little stunt will probably and hopefully increase the number of viewers.  I'm not anti-gay, and I love* the Robertsons*.



They ARE funny.   I wonder if they are really like that or it's a put-on for the camera.


----------



## Moonglow

Delta4Embassy said:


> "How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?"
> 
> I always thought that was said to be ironic since that same document mentions slaves as only being 3/5ths a free person. I think they meant "All affluent white men." Notice women at that time couldn't vote or do much of anything else in addition to acknowledging slaves.



For some reason several radical republican women want to go make the USA like it was before women's suffrage.


----------



## Moonglow

mal said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet the libtards believe that morality should be legislated all the time. *  They just want it to be their morality.     Some behavior is immoral.   Some behavior is a crime.  We criminalize behavior on a daily, hourly by the minute basis.   The morality of homosexuality is to be unquestioned but it is immoral to refuse to participate in a homosexual relationship.
> 
> If you really didn't want morality to be legislated, you would uphold the rights of gays to maintain their relationship and uphold the right of someone to speak out against it, refuse to bake a cake for their wedding and refuse to take their pictures.   That's not legislating morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I don't think morality should be legislated at all....unless it is something that hurts others.....if it does, it's criminal behavior.   Like the saying, "I have a right to swing my arm.  But that right to swing my arm stops at your nose."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be Charged for swinging at someone and not hitting them, Dipshit.
> 
> Intimidation is not Legal.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


not where I live.


----------



## Moonglow

Katzndogz said:


> Yet the libtards believe that morality should be legislated all the time.   They just want it to be their morality.     Some behavior is immoral.   Some behavior is a crime.  We criminalize behavior on a daily, hourly by the minute basis.   The morality of homosexuality is to be unquestioned but it is immoral to refuse to participate in a homosexual relationship.
> 
> If you really didn't want morality to be legislated, you would uphold the rights of gays to maintain their relationship and uphold the right of someone to speak out against it, refuse to bake a cake for their wedding and refuse to take their pictures.   That's not legislating morality.



so do conservatives, they are the worst and have doing it the longest in US legislative.


----------



## Gracie

I LOVE duck dynasty. They crack me up. And so what about what he said? It's his opinion and he is entitled to it. Plus, they could care less what anyone thinks of them. A&E needs THEM, THEY don't need A&E.


----------



## Moonglow

> The morality of homosexuality is to be unquestioned but it is immoral to refuse to participate in a homosexual relationship.



please show me the bill, statue or law on this.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

It's obvious to me that people who make anti-gay remarks, just don't know any gay people. They're talking from a limited, bigoted upbringing


----------



## Moonglow

Gracie said:


> I LOVE duck dynasty. They crack me up. And so what about what he said? It's his opinion and he is entitled to it. Plus, they could care less what anyone thinks of them. A&E needs THEM, THEY don't need A&E.



That is why they are on A&E and do not have their own cable channel.


----------



## mskafka

They've grown beyond what some people expected.  I knew this was coming.  Look at the sources, and the NAMES of those spreading this crap.  

Divide and conquer!


----------



## mskafka

Remember the "might offend some of the Muslims...?"  Fail!  Now they've offended gays?  I know many gays who think the show is hilarious.  I'll bet I know what's coming next----the ultimate scarlet letter, in American society.


----------



## Gracie

They better not take DD off the air over this bullshit. I will be totally pissed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Delta4Embassy said:


> As a bisexual I agree our inclination to being overly politically correct has gotten out of hand. Anyone who raises an eyebrow for this sort of thing needs to spend 5 minutes reading around on this website to develop a much-needed thicker skin.
> 
> If we're going to have a 1st Amendment, some of us need to learn how to say "So what?"
> 
> "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell



Have to keep an eye on you...I might have misread you. I doubt it, but there's always a slight chance I did


----------



## Sunshine

Duck Dynasty.  LOL.  Not my type of show.


----------



## mskafka

Phil made his position pretty clear, on the pet-photography episode. I was NOT offended.  Enough said .    

I suspect that someone mistook them for ignorant rednecks, and it backfired on him.  They are awesome at feigning ignorance; and I'm LOVING it!


----------



## whitehall

Is it against the law to make a comment that is offensive to homosexuals on a cable series? Not yet anyway, so where would the "backlash" come from? The ever vigilant and tax exempt Media Matters?  Last I heard DD doesn't have condoms or gay bars as sponsors.


----------



## Gracie

Hubby's beard looks like theirs now, lol. He gets a kick out of them too. Whenever I am down...I watch DD. They make me laugh every time. EVERY time. Especially Sy. Well...heck. ALL of them do. Those deadpan comments and Sy's craziness. Just a hoot to watch.


----------



## longknife

> Duck Dynasty Star Compares Gay People to Drunks, Terrorists, and Prostitutes
> 
> But he says he "would never treat anyone with disrespect."
> By Laura Stampler @laurastamplerDec. 18, 20136
> 
> Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson is under fire for repeated anti-gay comments in a profile for Januarys issue of GQ.
> 
> It started when Robertson began to talk about the erosion of morality in American culture in which, Everything is blurred on whats right and whats wrong. Sin becomes fine. When asked to elaborate on what he thinks is sinful, Robertson responded:
> 
> 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.



Read more: Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Makes Anti-Gay Statements | TIME.com Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Makes Anti-Gay Statements | TIME.com

Think there'll be raving responses to this piece?


----------



## Againsheila

Reminds me of when my friend came to my door to call me a "bigot".  I had told him I don't agree with the gay lifestyle.  He's gay.  I asked him, "Have I treated you any differently since I found out you were gay than I did before I knew?"  He said, "No."  "Then what the heck is your problem?"  He's still my friend and always will be especially since he's more family than friend what with me knowing him since before he was born.  He's been really trying my patience lately.  He's nearly 50 years old and still borrowing (and never returning) money from his mother and she's on a fixed income.  Quite frankly, that bothers me more than his being gay.  

We all have our own morals and beliefs, that doesn't mean we treat others who do not follow our beliefs crappy.  We're suppose to love everybody, doesn't mean we have to agree with them.


----------



## Moonglow

I though _Duck Dynasty _was already a big hit?


----------



## RoadVirus

> 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.



One of the Duck Dynasty guys offended the Fudge Packers...the end of the world is nigh!

The Left has got to hate this show and the Robertsons because they are everything a Liberal hates:

1. They're White
2. They run a successful family business
3. They're Christians
4. They're most likely Republican


----------



## Gracie

The Robertsons are what this country used to be like. They fought in the war, they are a close knit family, they don't hunt for sport but to feed the family, they love their wives, they bless their meals, they pray to God, they love their country. I love every damn one of them. Whomever is trying to drag them down..good luck. And yes, the gay friends I know love them too and take no offense they don't approve of the gay lifestyle. The Robertsons don't "approve" but they still love them because God says to love everyone. They practice what they stand by. Period. And that pisses a few off.

AND....Phil didn't say a damn thing derogatory. Not one thing. He was stating his opinion and his beliefs. Since when is freedom of speech so bad folks get in an uproar? The gays that ARE offended? Change the fucking channel. I don't see a huge outcry about RuPaul's Drag Race from heterosexuals. And if they are crying and wringing their hands...I haven't heard about it.


----------



## National Socialist

Makes me like his show even more and I am speaking as an Atheist! I love that show.


----------



## Katzndogz

The best thing about them is that they are secure enough to not care what others think.   Phil blowing off Barbara Walters horrified the liberals.  She's queen media.   They have no one that they answer to.


----------



## M14 Shooter

The people in question had every right to say what they said.

Those that disagree with what they said have every right to whine and cry about it.


----------



## Wyld Kard

The star from 'Duck Dynasty' made some incendiary anti-gay remarks.

So what!   BIG FUCKING DEAL!

It's called Freedom Of Speech.


----------



## Katzndogz

American man:  Steely eyed hunter.
obama man:  in parent's basement wearing footie pajamas drinking hot chocolate mommy made for him.


----------



## JOSweetHeart

Wake said:


> Mr. Robertson has an opinion, and Americans should be allowed to have one without the threat of their livelihoods being ravaged. All for giving an honest opinion when asked.


Amen to all of this.   

God bless you and that man always!!!   

Holly

P.S. No two people on this planet are exactly the same.


----------



## novasteve

He was suspended


----------



## National Socialist

novasteve said:


> He was suspended



Who was?


----------



## bodecea

Wildcard said:


> The star from 'Duck Dynasty' made some incendiary anti-gay remarks.
> 
> So what!   BIG FUCKING DEAL!
> 
> It's called Freedom Of Speech.



Agree...it's really no big thing.


----------



## National Socialist

'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended from show after equating homosexuality with bestiality - NY Daily News

Yep. Faggots and other degenerates whined and he is suspended. Stand strong Phil! We support you!


----------



## National Socialist

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-Phil-Robertson/319275058214450

everyone support them!


----------



## Katzndogz

I doubt that he's been suspended.  A&E doesn't have that power or authority. They air the show.  They have no authority beyond that.


----------



## National Socialist

Katz look above they did.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... no. Your brutish ripostes tell me everything I need to know. You are an automaton. Programmed partisan to the core. Good day sir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not lying about who I am so I can sabotage a primary. Your as bad as Fakie
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sir crossed a line. I don't make a habit of sabotaging free thought, as both parties have done. Would I lie about being a libertarian given how poorly they're viewed? Sorry bub, until you get to know me, you aren't allowed to judge me.
Click to expand...


You said it yourself you dishonest hack

tapatalk post


----------



## Katzndogz

National Socialist said:


> Katz look above they did.



It's another lib lie.  All A&E could do is decide not to air the show.  They cannot suspend anyone from the show.  They don't own the show.  DD owns the show.  They pay A&E for airtime.  

The whole thing is ridiculous.  When A&E got complaints over the guns and prayers, the Robertsons told the network to stick it.   The show would be over.   

All a network can do is decide not to allow airtime.  On any show no matter what network it is.


----------



## Katzndogz

What DD might do is let A&E have the right to reruns for the remainder of the contract.   Then do something else.  I can't see these independent people buckling under for the gay activists.


----------



## Gracie

I don't "do" facebook, but if someone does, could they please post for me the following (along with the link if links are allowed there) :

*You are what this country used to be like. You fought in the war, you are a close knit family, you pray to God, you love your country. I love every damn one of you. Whomever is trying to drag you down..stay as you are. And yes, the gay friends I know love you too and take no offense at what you said. God says to love everyone. You practice what you stand by. Stand firm because you have MANY who support you. Gays as well.
Much appreciation,
Gracie*


----------



## National Socialist

Phil Robertson Suspended From Duck Dynasty Over Anti-Gay Comments | E! Online

The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."


----------



## OriginalShroom

Way to go Phil.  Speak the truth and let the left gnash their teeth.



> Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended from Filming : People.com
> 
> A&E, which airs the reality show that follows the duck-hunting and duck call-creating Robertson family, has suspended patriarch Phil Robertson indefinitely from filming following his anti-gay comments printed in GQ.
> 
> "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," says a statement from the network that was sent to PEOPLE. "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."
> 
> In his interview with GQ, Robertson, 67, used stereotypes to describe certain groups and likened homosexuality to bestiality.
> 
> "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job," Robertson also said. "We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus  whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists."
> 
> GLAAD slammed the comments. "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," spokesperson Wilson Cruz said in a statement.
> 
> After a request for comment, Robertson, 67, released a statement to PEOPLE: "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together," he said. "However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity."
> 
> Duck Dynasty will return to A&E with new episodes in January. Robertson will be seen in those episodes, but he will not be filming any new episodes due to his suspension.



He didn't say anything wrong.  The left just doesn't like the truth.

Notice how fast A&E reacted here and how long it took MSNBC to react after Bashir said that a Republican Woman, Sara Palin, should have someone defecate in her mouth and urinate on her face.


----------



## Katzndogz

It does look like A&E is trying to flex a little muscle.

Ohhhhh if this could only be the spark that starts a major backlash.


----------



## OriginalShroom

Any bets that the rest of family takes steps to make A&E sorry?


----------



## Gracie

If they fuck with Phil, then I will no longer watch A&E. Fact.


----------



## Mr. H.

I think they'll fulfill any existing contracts, then bail.


----------



## Gracie

From the link above, I found this comment:



> Funny, gay people are constantly giving their opinions, but straight people aren't supposed to have an one anymore. Everyone has a right to an opinion whether it offends other people or not. Why do shows have to be changed or cancelled because the liberals feelings get hurt? People need to quit being so sensitive - POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL!


----------



## Katzndogz

I hope so.  I hope this is the last straw and people start fighting back.  Gays have ruined far too many lives as it is.


----------



## Gracie

Sure seems we are heading for some communist ways. Can't say this, can't say that, can't buy this, can't buy that, yadda yadda.

The future looks very bleak if something doesn't put a whoa on this bullshit.

Maybe we straights should have a hissy over RuPaul. It's offensive. See how they like it.


----------



## velvtacheeze

It was inevitable that one of them would say something offensive, and need to be taught a lesson.


----------



## Mr. H.

Duck Dynasty Star: 'They Told Us To Stop Praying To Jesus So It Wouldn't Offend Muslims' | Independent Journal Review


----------



## RetiredGySgt

velvtacheeze said:


> It was inevitable that one of them would say something offensive, and need to be taught a lesson.



So telling the truth is wrong now? People need to be punished for believing reality and not made up political points?

Be specific, quote what he said that A) is wrong And B) is offensive to a normal person.


----------



## rdean

OriginalShroom said:


> Way to go Phil.  Speak the truth and let the left gnash their teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended from Filming : People.com
> 
> A&E, which airs the reality show that follows the duck-hunting and duck call-creating Robertson family, has suspended patriarch Phil Robertson indefinitely from filming following his anti-gay comments printed in GQ.
> 
> "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," says a statement from the network that was sent to PEOPLE. "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."
> 
> In his interview with GQ, Robertson, 67, used stereotypes to describe certain groups and *likened homosexuality to bestiality*.
> 
> "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job," Robertson also said. "We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus &#8211; whether they're *homosexuals, drunks, terrorists*."
> 
> GLAAD slammed the comments. "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," spokesperson Wilson Cruz said in a statement.
> 
> After a request for comment, Robertson, 67, released a statement to PEOPLE: "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together," he said. "However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity."
> 
> Duck Dynasty will return to A&E with new episodes in January. Robertson will be seen in those episodes, but he will not be filming any new episodes due to his suspension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *He didn't say anything wrong.  The left just doesn't like the truth.*
> 
> Notice how fast A&E reacted here and how long it took MSNBC to react after Bashir said that a Republican Woman, Sara Palin, should have someone defecate in her mouth and urinate on her face.
Click to expand...


Because we all know homosexuals are drunken terrorists who pleasure fuck their pets.

You go right wingers.  I love it when you go after minorities.  Tell us again how much better you are then blacks and how "certain" religions should be banned.


----------



## BobPlumb

velvtacheeze said:


> It was inevitable that one of them would say something offensive, and need to be taught a lesson.



Oh how the times have changed!  Being a biblical Christian is now offensive while the practice of homosexuality is perfectly moral.


----------



## OriginalShroom

Here are the quotes from the article..





> &#8220;It seems like, to me, a vagina&#8212;as a man&#8212;would be more desirable than a man&#8217;s anus. That&#8217;s just me. I&#8217;m just thinking: There&#8217;s more there! She&#8217;s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I&#8217;m saying? But hey, sin: It&#8217;s not logical, my man. It&#8217;s just not logical.&#8221;
> 
> ::::::::
> 
> 
> Everything is blurred on what&#8217;s right and what&#8217;s wrong,&#8221; he says. &#8220;Sin becomes fine.&#8221;
> 
> _What, in your mind, is sinful?_
> &#8220;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,&#8221; he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: &#8220;Don&#8217;t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers&#8212;they won&#8217;t inherit the kingdom of God. Don&#8217;t deceive yourself. It&#8217;s not right.&#8221;


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Are faggots whining?


----------



## Misty

So the duck dynasty guy does not want to fuck a man. So what?

Do you want to sallow?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Katzndogz said:


> It does look like A&E is trying to flex a little muscle.
> 
> Ohhhhh if this could only be the spark that starts a major backlash.



I predict the family will stick with Phil, A&E will cave or lose the show. A&E has no power here.


----------



## OriginalShroom

A&E is gonna lose here...  And lose big time.


----------



## tinydancer

Geeze louize LGBT organizations out of control.

*He said he didn't understand how an anus was as attractive as a vagina*

LGBT: *jihad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

*Christian baker won't bake my wedding cake*

LGBT: *jihad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

*Chick fil A doesn't agree with same sex marriage*

LGBT: *jihad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



And the true hypocrites will still come out and claim that it's conservatives that want to force our values on others.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigt.


----------



## Katzndogz

Gracie said:


> If they fuck with Phil, then I will no longer watch A&E. Fact.



Of course you won't.  DD  will dump A&E then there won't be any reason to watch A&E.

There is every reason to understand that the Robertsons will tell this network to take a hike.

It's a big cable world out there.


----------



## MACAULAY

TheOldSchool said:


> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.



.................................

Welcome and thanks---a Liberal who will concede a point.

Here's a show based in the Deep South, the Bible Belt, who make duck calls, and are Christians, and how long was it going to be before the homosexuals got their jimmies rustled.

How many of them watch Duck Dynasty anyway?

I think Freedom of Speech wins this one.  The Butt-Balm companies can just spend their advertising dollars elsewhere.


----------



## OKTexas

Personally I think anyone trying to stifle speech should be hung and those who enable them should be next.

If you would like to email A&E here's the address.

aefeedback@aenetworks.com


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Left has been trying to get Duck Dynasty off the air because they pray.


----------



## Wyld Kard

velvtacheeze said:


> It was inevitable that one of them would say something offensive, and need to be taught a lesson.



Something offensive was said, so what.

But for you to suggest that the star of 'Duck Dynasty' should be taught a lesson for expressing his right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH is majorly stupid.  

You should be taught a lesson for the stupid crap that you post!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

A&E already asked the Robertsons not to pray because some found it offensive.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TheOldSchool said:


> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.



I know, it's a real shocker. An Evangelical self-described redneck from Louisiana doesn't like gays. Stop the fucking presses.

Who cares? I'll still watch the show.


----------



## mal

Faggots are really thin skinned... and they are probably going to push too far...



peace...


----------



## asaratis

Wake said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The show is pretty good.
> 
> It's just so stupid how some of these people ask a man what he believes (when they know darn well what he believes) and then when he gives his honest answer they then fly upon him in a wicked rage and try to destroy his livelihood. I don't read the Bible much, but my memory tells me there was a word for people like that in it.
> 
> Mr. Robertson has an opinion, and Americans should be allowed to have one without the threat of their livelihoods being ravaged. All for giving an honest opinion when asked.
Click to expand...

Hey!  That cookin' lady admitted that she said "******" once upon a time...lost her livelihood.  Who has NEVER used the word "******"?


You?  The hell you say!

Liar!


Get this, A&E....you can't appease EVERYBODY!  I imagine that you have ruffled more feathers than you have soothed with this ridiculous punishment of DD watchers in denying the participation of the father, Phil.

Had he made the comment on the show, I might agree with the sanction.  As he was responding to an interviewer not connected with A&E, I think A&E leaders have done nothing more than expose their own stupidity.


----------



## bodecea

tinydancer said:


> Geeze louize LGBT organizations out of control.
> 
> *He said he didn't understand how an anus was as attractive as a vagina*
> 
> LGBT: *jihad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> *Christian baker won't bake my wedding cake*
> 
> LGBT: *jihad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> *Chick fil A doesn't agree with same sex marriage*
> 
> LGBT: *jihad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> And the true hypocrites will still come out and claim that it's conservatives that want to force our values on others.
> 
> riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigt.


Excuse me...bumping him was stupid, stupid, stupid.


----------



## bodecea

theDoctorisIn said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it's a real shocker. An Evangelical self-described redneck from Louisiana doesn't like gays. Stop the fucking presses.
> 
> Who cares? I'll still watch the show.
Click to expand...


Same here...Uncle Si cracks me up.


----------



## blackhawk

It's called a opinion and it used to be something all people were allowed to have and express without being punished for it sadly it's something we have less and less of in the P.C. world of today.


----------



## AquaAthena

Gracie said:


> If they fuck with Phil, then I will no longer watch A&E. Fact.



*"Duck Dynasty" dad Phil Robertson has been placed on indefinite suspension by the A&E Network following his recent comments on homosexuality, the network announced Wednesday night.*

"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," the network said in a statement.

"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."

much more:

'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended by A&E | Fox News


----------



## JOSweetHeart

To me, if homosexual people want to be respected, getting other people's rights taken away is not going to make that happen. If anything, it will only make the homosexual people even more resented.

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## blackhawk

Here is what I find interesting people are always saying we need to have a honest conversation about pick the controversial topic race, abortion, in this case homosexuality yet when someone expresses a honest opinion about it that a special interest group does not like what happens the person gets attacked vilified and pressured to shut up. How do you have a honest conversation about anything when you always try and silence those you don't agree with?


----------



## Gracie

A&E dumped Dawg too and look what happened. They took him back.
A&E just fucked up...BIG time. Watch and see.


----------



## Gracie

> The gay and lesbian rights group GLAAD was quick to criticize Robertson for his comments and called on A&E to take action.



Well alrighty then! I think I will start a petition with LOGO for airing RuPaul's Drag Race (even though I watch it from time to time) and say it is offensive and crude that men dress as women and call each other ladies and bitches.

Anyone wanna join in?


----------



## blackhawk

I think it is safe to say the family will support Phil if A&E carries this on to long they will dump A&E for another network.


----------



## Gracie

Another network will jump at the chance to get DD.

lol. Fuck you, A&E, and the horse you rode in on.


----------



## Pogo

thanatos144 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you dishonest f*** the KKK was invention of the Democrats . They are the ones that institutionalized  racism
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to revise history --- with that brain?  Not happening, Sparky.
> 
> FWIW the KKK was founded by half a dozen Confederate soldier vets around a campfire in Pulaski, Tennessee on Christmas Day 1865.  It has never been a political organization or connected with any party.  You and the revisionists you rode in on just make yourselves look ridiculous.  The OP's point about slavishly following political parties around like sheep is bad enough; here you're making stuff up out of whole cloth to dig even deeper.
> 
> One more reason you're a pathetic uninformed wanker.
> 
> (/offtopic)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol confederates were democrats
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


You pathetic idiot.

EVERYBODY was a Democrat in the South; the Republican Party had been established only seven years before the Civil War erupted, and did so with Abolition as a central plank.  What did you think Southerners were going to do -- go join the party of the Union Prez that had just vanquished them?  Fuck no.  As far as the South was concerned only one party even existed, regardless what anyone's personal ideology was.  That's why it was effectively a one-party state until the CRA of 1964.

Duh.

That said, the KKK, once again, was never a political organization; it called itself a social organization.  To the extent its members ever dabbled in politics at all, which was a small handful, they were Democrats in the South and Republicans in the North -- whatever worked.

Go get a freaking education ya flaming dumb shit asswiper.


----------



## bodecea

JOSweetHeart said:


> To me, if homosexual people want to be respected, getting other people's rights taken away is not going to make that happen. If anything, it will only make the homosexual people even more resented.
> 
> God bless you always!!!
> 
> Holly



So...you will be putting blame of this on me?  and others like me?   Had nothing to do with this, you know.


----------



## bodecea

Gracie said:


> The gay and lesbian rights group GLAAD was quick to criticize Robertson for his comments and called on A&E to take action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well alrighty then! I think I will start a petition with LOGO for airing RuPaul's Drag Race (even though I watch it from time to time) and say it is offensive and crude that men dress as women and call each other ladies and bitches.
> 
> Anyone wanna join in?
Click to expand...


Go for it.


----------



## BobPlumb

GLAAD wants the bible to be rewritten such that homosexuality is no longer a sin!


----------



## JOSweetHeart

blackhawk said:


> Here is what I find interesting people are always saying we need to have a honest conversation about pick the controversial topic race, abortion, in this case homosexuality yet when someone expresses a honest opinion about it that a special interest group does not like what happens the person gets attacked vilified and pressured to shut up. How do you have a honest conversation about anything when you always try and silence those you don't agree with?


Amen to all of this. If some people can't deal with those who are different, then those who can't deal with it are the ones who should leave because they are the ones with the problem.

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## daveman

I'll accept the left's condemnation of Robertson when they show me proof of their condemnation of Alec Baldwin for his homophobic comments.


----------



## Gracie

BobPlumb said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was inevitable that one of them would say something offensive, and need to be taught a lesson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh how the times have changed!  Being a biblical Christian is now offensive while the practice of homosexuality is perfectly moral.
Click to expand...


Isn't there something in the bible about this happening? Hmm.


----------



## daveman




----------



## daveman

blackhawk said:


> Here is what I find interesting people are always saying we need to have a honest conversation about pick the controversial topic race, abortion, in this case homosexuality yet when someone expresses a honest opinion about it that a special interest group does not like what happens the person gets attacked vilified and pressured to shut up. How do you have a honest conversation about anything when you always try and silence those you don't agree with?


----------



## JOSweetHeart

bodecea said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, if homosexual people want to be respected, getting other people's rights taken away is not going to make that happen. If anything, it will only make the homosexual people even more resented.
> 
> 
> 
> So...you will be putting blame of this on me?  and others like me?   Had nothing to do with this, you know.
Click to expand...

If you are going to side with those who took his rights away, then you may as well get adjusted to carrying your share of the blame then. Would you like it if it was your freedom of speech that was taken away instead of that man's freedom of speech? 

God bless you and him always!!!   

Holly


----------



## BDBoop

AquaAthena said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they fuck with Phil, then I will no longer watch A&E. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Duck Dynasty" dad Phil Robertson has been placed on indefinite suspension by the A&E Network following his recent comments on homosexuality, the network announced Wednesday night.*
> 
> "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," the network said in a statement.
> 
> "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."
> 
> much more:
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended by A&E | Fox News
Click to expand...


What. The Hell.

So what?! All they have to do is put the standard disclaimer about "not reflecting A&E's beliefs" on at the beginning and end, and they'd be good to go.

That doesn't even make any sense, putting him on hiatus. He didn't say it on air.

I think A&E just shot themselves in the foot.


----------



## rdean

daveman said:


>



The very definition of conservatism is "lack of change".  They are so terrified of the world, they work desperately to keep things the same.

Other people change their views over time.  Not Republicans.  They think learning is for snobs and flexibility is a "fault".


----------



## asaratis

Sallow said:


> I watched it once.
> 
> They took a dead duck into a class room full of kids and gutted it.
> 
> Lovely guys.


Maybe schools should show kids what goes on at a chicken rendering plant...then pass out Chic-Fil-A sandwiches.



bodecea said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in a short period of time, they've....(aggravated I guess) Barbara Walters, Drew Magary, and Elizabeth Durand Streisand.
> 
> As ineffective as it most certainly will be, let the smear campaign begin.  This isn't news; and this little stunt will probably and hopefully increase the number of viewers.  I'm not anti-gay, and I love* the Robertsons*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ARE funny.   I wonder if they are really like that or it's a put-on for the camera.
Click to expand...

I'm betting they're funnier off camera...tone it down for the FCC.  The scenarios are staged, but the action is unscripted.



Moonglow said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I don't think morality should be legislated at all....unless it is something that hurts others.....if it does, it's criminal behavior.   Like the saying, "I have a right to swing my arm.  But that right to swing my arm stops at your nose."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be Charged for swinging at someone and not hitting them, Dipshit.
> 
> Intimidation is not Legal.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not where I live.
Click to expand...

...in the ozone?



Moonglow said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I LOVE duck dynasty. They crack me up. And so what about what he said? It's his opinion and he is entitled to it. Plus, they could care less what anyone thinks of them. A&E needs THEM, THEY don't need A&E.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why they are on A&E and do not have their own cable channel.
Click to expand...

A&E came to them...not vice versa.



Gracie said:


> They better not take DD off the air over this bullshit. I will be totally pissed.


DD does not need A&E.  It's the other way around.



Sunshine said:


> Duck Dynasty.  LOL.  Not my type of show.


That's why we have chocolate and vanilla.



Katzndogz said:


> National Socialist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katz look above they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's another lib lie.  All A&E could do is decide not to air the show.  They cannot suspend anyone from the show.  They don't own the show.  DD owns the show.  They pay A&E for airtime.
> 
> The whole thing is ridiculous.  When A&E got complaints over the guns and prayers, the Robertsons told the network to stick it.   The show would be over.
> 
> All a network can do is decide not to allow airtime.  On any show no matter what network it is.
Click to expand...

A&E pays DD...big bucks...that they do not actually need.  Duck Commander was quite successful before A&E courted them.



CrusaderFrank said:


> A&E already asked the Robertsons not to pray because some found it offensive.


They asked Phil not to use "Jesus" in the prayers.  They relented.



bodecea said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it's a real shocker. An Evangelical self-described redneck from Louisiana doesn't like gays. Stop the fucking presses.
> 
> Who cares? I'll still watch the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same here...Uncle Si cracks me up.
Click to expand...

Hey!



Gracie said:


> Another network will jump at the chance to get DD.
> 
> lol. Fuck you, A&E, and the horse you rode in on.


I'm betting the other networks are praying that DD will tell A&E to take a hike!


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Duck Dynasty is A&E's biggest franchise, by far. 

It's the most popular "nonfiction" cable show in history, and has had at times the highest ratings of anything _ever broadcast_ on the channel A&E.

I don't expect the "suspension" to last for more than a few weeks. They'll work out a deal with some sort of minor apology or something like that, and it'll blow over like everything else like this - unless the Robertsons quit the show, which isn't out of the realm of possibility.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very definition of conservatism is "lack of change".  They are so terrified of the world, they work desperately to keep things the same.
> 
> Other people change their views over time.  Not Republicans.  They think learning is for snobs and flexibility is a "fault".
Click to expand...

Stop desperately trying to change the subject.

You condemned Prejean for her views on gay marriage.  You gave Obama, who held the exact same views, a free pass.

If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all.


----------



## MACAULAY

blackhawk said:


> Here is what I find interesting people are always saying we need to have a honest conversation about pick the controversial topic race, abortion, in this case homosexuality yet when someone expresses a honest opinion about it that a special interest group does not like what happens the person gets attacked vilified and pressured to shut up. How do you have a honest conversation about anything when you always try and silence those you don't agree with?



......................

Very good point.

Us white boys (the ones who are not pinheads) have understood for years that a  "Conversation about race" would be entirely a listening process lest the race card be played forthwith.


----------



## BobPlumb

theDoctorisIn said:


> Duck Dynasty is A&E's biggest franchise, by far.
> 
> It's the most popular "nonfiction" cable show in history, and has had at times the highest ratings of anything _ever broadcast_ on the channel A&E.
> 
> I don't expect the "suspension" to last for more than a few weeks. They'll work out a deal with some sort of minor apology or something like that, and it'll blow over like everything else like this - unless the Robertsons quit the show, which isn't out of the realm of possibility.



If there is an apology, it better be A&E apologizing to the Robertsons.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wake said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The show is pretty good.
> 
> It's just so stupid how some of these people ask a man what he believes (when they know darn well what he believes) and then when he gives his honest answer they then fly upon him in a wicked rage and try to destroy his livelihood. I don't read the Bible much, but my memory tells me there was a word for people like that in it.
> 
> Mr. Robertson has an opinion, and Americans should be allowed to have one without the threat of their livelihoods being ravaged. All for giving an honest opinion when asked.
Click to expand...


And how exactly will you disallow the threat of someones livelihood being ravaged when he says something offensive? 

Private citizens are at liberty to voice their opposition to statements they find offensive. Private sector entities are at liberty to terminate their relationship with someone who is perceived to be detrimental to the interests of that private entity.  

Individuals are solely responsible for the things they say or do, and they must be prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions.


----------



## blackhawk

BDBoop said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they fuck with Phil, then I will no longer watch A&E. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Duck Dynasty" dad Phil Robertson has been placed on indefinite suspension by the A&E Network following his recent comments on homosexuality, the network announced Wednesday night.*
> 
> "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," the network said in a statement.
> 
> "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."
> 
> much more:
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended by A&E | Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What. The Hell.
> 
> So what?! All they have to do is put the standard disclaimer about "not reflecting A&E's beliefs" on at the beginning and end, and they'd be good to go.
> 
> That doesn't even make any sense, putting him on hiatus. He didn't say it on air.
> 
> I think A&E just shot themselves in the foot.
Click to expand...

Look at Alec Baldwin same thing makes his alleged slur while yelling at a reporter not something he said and the air yet got fired from MSNBC I believe responsibility comes with free speech and I believe in having standards but these type of knee jerk reactions are getting out of hand.


----------



## BobPlumb

I predict a Wendy's type of event happening in support of DD.


----------



## thanatos144

Pogo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to revise history --- with that brain?  Not happening, Sparky.
> 
> FWIW the KKK was founded by half a dozen Confederate soldier vets around a campfire in Pulaski, Tennessee on Christmas Day 1865.  It has never been a political organization or connected with any party.  You and the revisionists you rode in on just make yourselves look ridiculous.  The OP's point about slavishly following political parties around like sheep is bad enough; here you're making stuff up out of whole cloth to dig even deeper.
> 
> One more reason you're a pathetic uninformed wanker.
> 
> (/offtopic)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol confederates were democrats
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pathetic idiot.
> 
> EVERYBODY was a Democrat in the South; the Republican Party had been established only seven years before the Civil War erupted, and did so with Abolition as a central plank.  What did you think Southerners were going to do -- go join the party of the Union Prez that had just vanquished them?  Fuck no.  As far as the South was concerned only one party even existed, regardless what anyone's personal ideology was.  That's why it was effectively a one-party state until the CRA of 1964.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> That said, the KKK, once again, was never a political organization; it called itself a social organization.  To the extent its members ever dabbled in politics at all, which was a small handful, they were Democrats in the South and Republicans in the North -- whatever worked.
> 
> Go get a freaking education ya flaming dumb shit asswiper.
Click to expand...


Democrats are racists and they still are. 

tapatalk post


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Spoonman said:


> remember when people were entitled to their own opinions in America?



Yes, its not hard to remember at all  people today are entitled to their own opinions in America, nothing has changed in that regard. 



Spoonman said:


> also kind of strange that the acceptable attitudes are, I don't like your opinion or perspctive on things so I am going to boycott and call for others to boycott your products or services. then in the next breath,  you don't like my opinions or perspectives but i am still going to force you to supply your products or services to me.  WTF is up with that?



Whats up with that is youre exhibiting your ignorance, and confusing two completely different issues. 

Private citizens are at liberty to boycott private entities they perceive to be hostile to their interests, boycotts and the like in no way constitute discrimination. 

Public accommodations laws, however, do address acts of discrimination, when private businesses refuse to serve patrons solely as a consequence of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.


----------



## Pogo

thanatos144 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol confederates were democrats
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pathetic idiot.
> 
> EVERYBODY was a Democrat in the South; the Republican Party had been established only seven years before the Civil War erupted, and did so with Abolition as a central plank.  What did you think Southerners were going to do -- go join the party of the Union Prez that had just vanquished them?  Fuck no.  As far as the South was concerned only one party even existed, regardless what anyone's personal ideology was.  That's why it was effectively a one-party state until the CRA of 1964.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> That said, the KKK, once again, was never a political organization; it called itself a social organization.  To the extent its members ever dabbled in politics at all, which was a small handful, they were Democrats in the South and Republicans in the North -- whatever worked.
> 
> Go get a freaking education ya flaming dumb shit asswiper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are racists and they still are.
Click to expand...

^^ Yet another demonstration of the idiocy the OP is concerned about.

This one tries to conflate a political party with a personal character trait.  What a maroon.


----------



## AquaAthena

Wake said:


> 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.
> 
> 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."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV
> 
> 
> Reading this, I feel this the same kind of drama that some liberal media is known for. Wasn't there outcry from some liberals when Miss California was also asked her honest opinion? In my opinion, GLAAD is becoming the obnoxious drama queen that everyone wants to ignore, and it is hurting the image of homosexuals as a group.
Click to expand...


*The Duck Dynasty Men before their beards:

Si:*





*Phil:* ( high-school  and college football player and almost went pro: )




*
Willie:*




*
Brothers in high-school:*




*
Brothers, small: aww*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Delta4Embassy said:


> As a bisexual I agree our inclination to being overly politically correct has gotten out of hand. Anyone who raises an eyebrow for this sort of thing needs to spend 5 minutes reading around on this website to develop a much-needed thicker skin.
> 
> If we're going to have a 1st Amendment, some of us need to learn how to say "So what?"
> 
> "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell



Unfortunately youre also exhibiting your ignorance, as this is not a free speech issue. The First Amendment applies only to government entities authorized to make law or public policy, not the private sector such as the producers of the program, the network that broadcasts it, or the private citizens who express their disapproval.    

Private society is not subject to First Amendment restrictions, and for good reason  as ideally private society alone should determine what is or is not appropriate speech, not the government or the courts.


----------



## BDBoop

In response;



> UPDATE 10:45 a.m.: Robertson has issued a statement in response:
> 
> "I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.
> 
> "However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."



'Duck Dynasty' star on hiatus for anti-gay comments


----------



## thanatos144

Moonglow said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?"
> 
> I always thought that was said to be ironic since that same document mentions slaves as only being 3/5ths a free person. I think they meant "All affluent white men." Notice women at that time couldn't vote or do much of anything else in addition to acknowledging slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason several radical republican women want to go make the USA like it was before women's suffrage.
Click to expand...


Did you eat paint chips as a kid? 

tapatalk post


----------



## mskafka

As long as many of you continue with the left and right-wing bullshit, things like this are going to continue to happen.  It's a political strategy.  READ ABOUT IT!  

1. First someone tried to convince us that MUSLIMS would be offended by Phil praying in Jesus' name.  Which was TOTALLY blown out of proportion.  Why wouldn't we believe it, since DD seems to have such a large Muslim audience.  And even if Muslims watched the show, the disagreements would primarily be-dietary, and male/female customs, I suspect.    

2. Now we're being led to believe that people are SHOCKED at Phil's personal beliefs on gays; as if an alternate response was expected.

3. Now within 2 months...I will wager....he will be labeled "anti-*******."---because he "snubbed Barbara Walters.  Put it together, for God's sake!  Or, like-minded hoaxers (lying by omission) will attempt to drag up his (Phil's) entire past, and expose it.  

It's not "liberals" my friends.  This is someone who sees this wonderful family as a threat to his throne---and fear lingers, that we Christians might remember what we actually stand for, and what is important to us.  

Lol!  Someone "suspended" Phil Robertson.  That's like "suspending" Donald Trump.  He may not have the same net worth; but I'm sure that he couldn't care less.


----------



## thanatos144

bodecea said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, if homosexual people want to be respected, getting other people's rights taken away is not going to make that happen. If anything, it will only make the homosexual people even more resented.
> 
> God bless you always!!!
> 
> Holly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you will be putting blame of this on me?  and others like me?   Had nothing to do with this, you know.
Click to expand...


How big is your ego? 

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Pogo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pathetic idiot.
> 
> EVERYBODY was a Democrat in the South; the Republican Party had been established only seven years before the Civil War erupted, and did so with Abolition as a central plank.  What did you think Southerners were going to do -- go join the party of the Union Prez that had just vanquished them?  Fuck no.  As far as the South was concerned only one party even existed, regardless what anyone's personal ideology was.  That's why it was effectively a one-party state until the CRA of 1964.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> That said, the KKK, once again, was never a political organization; it called itself a social organization.  To the extent its members ever dabbled in politics at all, which was a small handful, they were Democrats in the South and Republicans in the North -- whatever worked.
> 
> Go get a freaking education ya flaming dumb shit asswiper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are racists and they still are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Yet another demonstration of the idiocy the OP is concerned about.
> 
> This one tries to conflate a political party with a personal character trait.  What a maroon.
Click to expand...


I just heed history and am informed of current events. To bad you believe in fairy tales 

tapatalk post


----------



## Avatar4321

quoting scripture is incendiary?

Well get used to it. Good people will be quoting it more.


----------



## Avatar4321

Moonglow said:


> How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?



How does Phil telling the truth restrict the rights of anyone? If anyone's rights are being restricted, it's Phils. He gave an honest answer and is being villified for it.

If any restricts sinners, it's themselves. because sin restricts people. The only way to liberate oneself from sin is to come to Christ and let the truth free you.


----------



## Katzndogz

The question now is what will the Robertson family do to A&E?

It is highly unlikely they will take Dad being treated so badly.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Bottom line..

 Gay activists can be bigots, hate mongers, intolerant towards Christians and exercise their free speech rights.

But

 Christians are required to give up their free speech rights and shut up.


----------



## Avatar4321

Delta4Embassy said:


> "How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?"
> 
> I always thought that was said to be ironic since that same document mentions slaves as only being 3/5ths a free person. I think they meant "All affluent white men." Notice women at that time couldn't vote or do much of anything else in addition to acknowledging slaves.



Wow... not sure where to begin.

1) The Declaration of Independence doesn't say that slaves are 3/5 of a free person.
2) The Constitution punished states that allowed slavery by  not allowing them to count their slaves as full people and obtain more representation in the Federal government. You think that's a bad thing?
3) Women had the vote at the time of the Founding. it was taken away from them when the parties start developing and the one in power realized women were voting for the wrong party.

How do people not know this simple history?


----------



## Avatar4321

bodecea said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet the libtards believe that morality should be legislated all the time. *  They just want it to be their morality.     Some behavior is immoral.   Some behavior is a crime.  We criminalize behavior on a daily, hourly by the minute basis.   The morality of homosexuality is to be unquestioned but it is immoral to refuse to participate in a homosexual relationship.
> 
> If you really didn't want morality to be legislated, you would uphold the rights of gays to maintain their relationship and uphold the right of someone to speak out against it, refuse to bake a cake for their wedding and refuse to take their pictures.   That's not legislating morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I don't think morality should be legislated at all....unless it is something that hurts others.....if it does, it's criminal behavior.   Like the saying, "I have a right to swing my arm.  But that right to swing my arm stops at your nose."
Click to expand...


If morality wasnt legislated, we would have no criminal code.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sunshine said:


> Duck Dynasty.  LOL.  Not my type of show.



My wife thought so at first too. but as we watched a few episodes, we all came to love it.

First episode i saw Jace wanted his own office and Willie wouldn't give him one. So some of the guys were just like "Well, why don't we just build one then." So they built him one that day while Willie was away. 

I was just like. Now this is what America should be. If we want something, we do something about it instead of waiting for others to give us what we want.


----------



## Gracie

I hope they tell A&E to kiss their asses.


----------



## Gracie

The first show I watched was the one where they wanted a duck blind so instead of building a treehouse type of thing, they hauled an old beat up trailer up on a stump. LOL


----------



## Gracie

Remember the frog leg hunt at the hoity country club pond?


----------



## mskafka

I love when Phil and/or Si are interacting with the granddaughters.  It's so cute.


----------



## Gracie

Si cracks me up. His stories are just wild. Mostly, I love the deadpan words and expressions from Jace and Phil.

Oh, A&E so fucked up on this one.


----------



## Borillar

His remarks didn't seem all that incendiary to me. Incendiary is claiming that "God hates fags" or calling for violence against gays. A total overreaction by A&E. People need thicker skin if they are offended by comments like this. Don't like it? Change the channel.


----------



## Gracie

Why is saying "black and proud" or "gay and proud" or "hispanic and proud" or "American and proud" ok but "Christian and proud" is seen as "intolerance"? He said he didn't understand what men saw in another man's anus vs a woman's vagina. He was not saying it was like beastiality, he said "what is next"?

These double standards are so extreme, it is mind boggling.


----------



## mskafka

He is being demonized, because someone feels threatened.  I don't think it's entirely gays, but perhaps business rivals.  They've reminded people that depending on someone else for your survival, is dangerous.


----------



## theHawk

Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?

What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?


----------



## Gracie

Wish the Robertsons would let me live on a small section of their land. I'd go in a heartbeat. They could teach a thing or two. And it would be fun as well as enlightening.


----------



## BDBoop

> In a quote that may raise even more eyebrows than his feelings about gays, Robertson claims he "never" saw black people mistreated during the pre-civil rights era in his home state, and strongly suggests that African Americans were more content under Jim Crow.
> 
> "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash," he said.  "They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white peoplenot a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.




'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson sounds off on gays, civil rights - latimes.com

Yup! Raised my eyebrows. Still don't think he deserved the boot, though.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_GLAAD excoriated Robertson for the interview, accusing him of pushing "vile and extreme stereotypes." 

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz said. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans -- and Americans -- who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families." _

'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended over anti-gay comments - MSN TV News


----------



## Politico

Borillar said:


> His remarks didn't seem all that incendiary to me. Incendiary is claiming that "God hates fags" or calling for violence against gays. A total overreaction by A&E. People need thicker skin if they are offended by comments like this. Don't like it? Change the channel.



They weren't incendiary.  He said that whether you are humping a sheep or another dude's bunghole it is unnatural. Like it or not not it's true. Unfortunately he phrased it poorly which gave the scumbag media an opening to twist things.


----------



## Politico

Become? What planet have you been living on? It's the number one show. And I hope it gets bigger just to spite them.


----------



## BDBoop

Put up a poll ...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tv-fo...ut-phil-robertson-on-hiatus-duck-dynasty.html


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not lying about who I am so I can sabotage a primary. Your as bad as Fakie
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sir crossed a line. I don't make a habit of sabotaging free thought, as both parties have done. Would I lie about being a libertarian given how poorly they're viewed? Sorry bub, until you get to know me, you aren't allowed to judge me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said it yourself you dishonest hack
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Really? Now you put words in my mouth?


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are racists and they still are.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ Yet another demonstration of the idiocy the OP is concerned about.
> 
> This one tries to conflate a political party with a personal character trait.  What a maroon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just heed history and am informed of current events. To bad you believe in fairy tales
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Actually, thanatos,  [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has you outclassed in the history department. He and I have had debates on historicity that would exceed your ability to comprehend. One of my favorite debate partners to tell you the truth. To say you heed history and are informed of current events is a misnomer.


----------



## LoneLaugher

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ Yet another demonstration of the idiocy the OP is concerned about.
> 
> This one tries to conflate a political party with a personal character trait.  What a maroon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just heed history and am informed of current events. To bad you believe in fairy tales
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, thanatos, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has you outclassed in the history department. He and I have had debates on histrionics that would exceed your ability to comprehend. One of my favorite debate partners to tell you the truth. To say you heed history and are informed of current events is a misnomer.
Click to expand...


Histrionics?


----------



## BDBoop

LoneLaugher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just heed history and am informed of current events. To bad you believe in fairy tales
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, thanatos, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has you outclassed in the history department. He and I have had debates on histrionics that would exceed your ability to comprehend. One of my favorite debate partners to tell you the truth. To say you heed history and are informed of current events is a misnomer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Histrionics?
Click to expand...


Yup.

I'm wondering if that's not why I had an hysteria-ectomy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they teach you this bullshit in school now?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they ever teach you manners in school? Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they teach you  to be a dishonest f***?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


thanatos is lost when it comes to understanding factual reasoning and decent behavior.


----------



## BDBoop

Oh, how interesting.

Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central


----------



## TemplarKormac

BDBoop said:


> Oh, how interesting.
> 
> Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central



Seriously, knock it off. You've made it clear you've been in a bad mood, stop taking it out on me. Please?


----------



## TemplarKormac

LoneLaugher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just heed history and am informed of current events. To bad you believe in fairy tales
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, thanatos, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has you outclassed in the history department. He and I have had debates on histrionics that would exceed your ability to comprehend. One of my favorite debate partners to tell you the truth. To say you heed history and are informed of current events is a misnomer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Histrionics?
Click to expand...


Historicity I mean, damn that spell check.


----------



## LoneLaugher

There are over a million words in the English language.....you can't expect to know them all, right?


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, how interesting.
> 
> Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, knock it off. You've made it clear you've been in a bad mood, stop taking it out on me. Please?
Click to expand...


Guy, you've bashed enough other people on spelling errors and typoes you really don't have room to bitch.


----------



## JoeB131

theHawk said:


> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?



Why not?  

Michael Richards made racist comments.  He hasn't worked since. 

Mel Gibson made anti-Semetic Comments. He hasn't worked since. 

There are lines you don't cross.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

TemplarKormac said:


> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, come to think of it, there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.



Wow. Complete sentences, astute observations, valid points. Very refreshing from the usual "Nuh uh!" replies or "You're a libtard" type posts.

Grew sick of the constant 'monkies throwing feces' nature of American politics myself. So much so I gave up on participating altogether. While I identify as a liberal with some conservative positions (death penalty, abortion, etc.) I refuse to vote or get involed beyond discussing it online and watching the news. If we start electing people not beholden to special interests, taking what amounts to bribes and only ever saying what's been scored and tested and written by professional speech writers, then I'll get involved real quick. But thus far, every politician of every stripe is a complete puppet of whoever got them elected. Empty shirts all of them.

Politicians of today bear no resemblance to the ones who got this country up and running. And while the Founders were far from perfect, they're a lot better than the mouthpieces we have now. No one today would dare stand up and say what they really think, and those that do always 'walk back their comments' the very next day if they even wait that long. If no one's gonna stand up for what they believe, why should we believe in them?

"Politicians make bad politicians." Me.

We need to stop electing professional liars and start getting leaders who're actually willing to lead. Not follow. If not willing to stand up for what you believe in risking your political office, sit the hell down and shut that silly little hole below you nose. We've had enough from your ilk. Why we continue to settle for 3rd and 4th rate candidates then act all surprised when they do poorly and drive this country closer and closer to the cliff is mind-boggling. 

"There's no IQ requirement to run for Congress." (paraphrased remark from "Religulous")

Time to get leaders with IQs above 80. Ones who can do more than read prepared statements and look pretty on tv. Politicians who get into office intending to stay there until they die doing only whatever their donors want, and saying only what makes them popular is driving this country off a cliff. In a time when other countries are seeing mass protests and uprisings, how much longer til we get that here? 

Over a decade of war loosing to a 19th century society, national debt so massive it can never be paid off, wasteful spending everywhere, unfair taxes, and leaders feathering their own nests instead of representing their constiuents as they swore oaths to do? What's it take before the people say enough. Time for drastic change.

...Wow, they're right, ya do get more conservative in your 40s.


----------



## JoeB131

OriginalShroom said:


> Any bets that the rest of family takes steps to make A&E sorry?



My guess is that they wait for it to blow over because the show already jumped the shark.


----------



## mal

JoeB131 said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any bets that the rest of family takes steps to make A&E sorry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that they wait for it to blow over because the show already jumped the shark.
Click to expand...


How can a Mindless Voyeuristic Show about Rednecks jump the shark?...



peace...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

theHawk said:


> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?



And here we have our example of ignorance, stupidity, and hate from the right. 

Again, the issue has nothing to do with free speech, in fact our right to speak freely has never been more secure.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Was A&E wrong to put Phil Robertson on hiatus (Duck Dynasty)



This isnt a right or wrong issue. 

And yet again: as a private entity A&E is at liberty to do as it sees fit to protect its interests, placing a cast member on hiatus violates no free speech; and the private citizen viewers are at liberty to stop watching A&E if they disagree with the networks decision.


----------



## Sunni Man

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And here we have our example of ignorance, stupidity, and hate from the right.
> 
> Again, the issue has nothing to do with free speech, in fact our right to speak freely has never been more secure.


Phil's remarks were neither ignorant or stupid or reflected hate.

His comments were based on his Christian beliefs and personal experiences where he grew up.    .....


----------



## TemplarKormac

LoneLaugher said:


> There are over a million words in the English language.....you can't expect to know them all, right?



Naturally no. But then again I use spellcheck. Errors are bound to occur.


----------



## candycorn

TemplarKormac said:


> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, come to think of it, there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.



Hilarious.


----------



## dannyboys

This I will guarantee: The entire family has already torn up their contract with A&E.
As Phil goes so goes the entire family.
The hilarious thing is should the family decide not to continue the series.....on any network the sales of their products will skyrocket.
I can see a duck call hanging in the back window of millions of vehicles. 
Displaying the Duck Dynasty merchandise will become a social/political statement.
The merchandizing geniuses at DD already now this of course. In a way the best thing that could happen was to have a bunch of LIB pussies pressure another bunch of LIB pussies at A&E to remove Phil.
 I hear the 'metro' drinking the (cough) 'hot chocolate' in Bobo's ad is being offered a comedy series on A&E. He and Chrisie Hayes and 'Maddcow' and Reggie Love are going to be room mates and the audience has to figure out which of them has the 'night in with a friend' and what sex the friend might be. The last scene will show them clinking their (cough) 'hot chocolate' mugs and licking their lips. (PS. Watch for 'someone special' to make a 'cameo'.)


----------



## PoliticalChic

AquaAthena said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV
> 
> 
> Reading this, I feel this the same kind of drama that some liberal media is known for. Wasn't there outcry from some liberals when Miss California was also asked her honest opinion? In my opinion, GLAAD is becoming the obnoxious drama queen that everyone wants to ignore, and it is hurting the image of homosexuals as a group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Duck Dynasty Men before their beards:
> 
> Si:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Phil:* ( high-school  and college football player and almost went pro: )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Willie:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Brothers in high-school:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Brothers, small: aww*
Click to expand...




Can you imagine.....suspending a Red Neck from a show about Red Necks, for talking like a Red Neck.....


----------



## candycorn

Delta4Embassy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, come to think of it, there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Complete sentences, astute observations, valid points. Very refreshing from the usual "Nuh uh!" replies or "You're a libtard" type posts.
> 
> Grew sick of the constant 'monkies throwing feces' nature of American politics myself. So much so I gave up on participating altogether. While I identify as a liberal with some conservative positions (death penalty, abortion, etc.) I refuse to vote or get involed beyond discussing it online and watching the news. If we start electing people not beholden to special interests, taking what amounts to bribes and only ever saying what's been scored and tested and written by professional speech writers, then I'll get involved real quick. But thus far, every politician of every stripe is a complete puppet of whoever got them elected. Empty shirts all of them.
> 
> Politicians of today bear no resemblance to the ones who got this country up and running. And while the Founders were far from perfect, they're a lot better than the mouthpieces we have now. No one today would dare stand up and say what they really think, and those that do always 'walk back their comments' the very next day if they even wait that long. If no one's gonna stand up for what they believe, why should we believe in them?
> 
> "Politicians make bad politicians." Me.
> 
> We need to stop electing professional liars and start getting leaders who're actually willing to lead. Not follow. If not willing to stand up for what you believe in risking your political office, sit the hell down and shut that silly little hole below you nose. We've had enough from your ilk. Why we continue to settle for 3rd and 4th rate candidates then act all surprised when they do poorly and drive this country closer and closer to the cliff is mind-boggling.
> 
> "There's no IQ requirement to run for Congress." (paraphrased remark from "Religulous")
> 
> Time to get leaders with IQs above 80. Ones who can do more than read prepared statements and look pretty on tv. Politicians who get into office intending to stay there until they die doing only whatever their donors want, and saying only what makes them popular is driving this country off a cliff. In a time when other countries are seeing mass protests and uprisings, how much longer til we get that here?
> 
> Over a decade of war loosing to a 19th century society, national debt so massive it can never be paid off, wasteful spending everywhere, unfair taxes, and leaders feathering their own nests instead of representing their constiuents as they swore oaths to do? What's it take before the people say enough. Time for drastic change.
> 
> ...Wow, they're right, ya do get more conservative in your 40s.
Click to expand...


Great...

So when are you going to file to run for office?  

What's that you say?  You're not going to do it?  You're too busy...can't be bothered...have other obligations?

Did Washington have anything going on?  Did Andrew Jackson?  Did Teddy Roosevelt?  Did San Ervin?  Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, decided to leave that to become the VP and take what was probably a 8-10 MILLION DOLLAR pay cut.  At that time, he had 3 heart attacks in the bank already.  You think he could have just sat there in Dallas and coutned his millions?  Yes...he could have  but, like him or loathe him, he chose to serve.

Why aren't you?  

This is the problem with American politics...too few are willing to serve.  I don't think politics is that important myself in the grander scheme of life.  When you have a strong Constitution, the actors on the stage reading the lines means much.  What's the old saying; the government was built by giants to be run by pygmies?  We have a great many pygmies in all levels of government.  

Templar's revelation is as hilarious as it is hollow.  Partisans on message boards are partisan because of one or two reasons; they actually believe their BS or they take joy in slinging insults.  Both Parties are responsible for the state of affairs.  Both parties are totally out to lunch fiscally.  Both parties have failed in their ever-repeated urge to change.  So I'm a values voters.  Currently, the Dems are closer to my values than the GOP.  Frankly, I think you have to be soft between the ears to share the same values as the GOP but that's a topic for another thread. 

Meanwhile, we get the government we deserve.  If the American people are apathetic (and they are), the government is apathetic.  Case in point, we're $17T in debt and there is zero outrage in the street.


----------



## martybegan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Was A&E wrong to put Phil Robertson on hiatus (Duck Dynasty)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isnt a right or wrong issue.
> 
> And yet again: as a private entity A&E is at liberty to do as it sees fit to protect its interests, placing a cast member on hiatus violates no free speech; and the private citizen viewers are at liberty to stop watching A&E if they disagree with the networks decision.
Click to expand...


Well then, lets shift the debate over to why a broadcast company feels the need to drop someone in a heartbeat due to a personal statement, that in no way threatens anyone, does not call for harm to be done to anyone, and at the end of the day does no real harm to anyone. 

We have come to a point where one side of the political debate is given all sorts of leeway, and when they cross the line it takes a massive outswelling of outrage to even get them a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, someone on the "wrong" side of the debate is an instant target for the "butthurt group of the week's" media campaign to silence them via economic assault.  

We have come to the point where if you offend the wrong 1% of the population you are ostracised without due process, and usually without being able to defend yourself.

Considering something "offensive" when it really only offends a small vocal minority may not be censorship, but it sure as hell isnt justice.


----------



## 007

theHawk said:


> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?



EXACTLY... the fucking queers have been preaching TOLERANCE from the start, all except for THEY won't TOLERATE anyone that doesn't fall in line with THEIR AGENDA.

Two faced, hypocritical PERVERTS. This kind of BIGOTED bull shit towards heterosexuals and/or Christians for what they BELIEVE is what constantly reminds people of how MILITANT and INTOLERANT queers and leftists actually are towards ANYONE who DARE say ANYTHING against their sick little pet, perverted, disgusting, sexual mental illness.

I hope the entire Duck Dynasty family tells A&E to fuck off and quits.


----------



## jon_berzerk

dannyboys said:


> This I will guarantee: The entire family has already torn up their contract with A&E.
> As Phil goes so goes the entire family.
> The hilarious thing is should the family decide not to continue the series.....on any network the sales of their products will skyrocket.
> I can see a duck call hanging in the back window of millions of vehicles.
> Displaying the Duck Dynasty merchandise will become a social/political statement.
> The merchandizing geniuses at DD already now this of course. In a way the best thing that could happen was to have a bunch of LIB pussies pressure another bunch of LIB pussies at A&E to remove Phil.
> I hear the 'metro' drinking the (cough) 'hot chocolate' in Bobo's ad is being offered a comedy series on A&E. He and Chrisie Hayes and 'Maddcow' and Reggie Love are going to be room mates and the audience has to figure out which of them has the 'night in with a friend' and what sex the friend might be. The last scene will show them clinking their (cough) 'hot chocolate' mugs and licking their lips. (PS. Watch for 'someone special' to make a 'cameo'.)




one can start here
Duck Calls | Duck Commander


----------



## BDBoop

TemplarKormac said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, thanatos, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has you outclassed in the history department. He and I have had debates on histrionics that would exceed your ability to comprehend. One of my favorite debate partners to tell you the truth. To say you heed history and are informed of current events is a misnomer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Histrionics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History I mean, damn that spell check.
Click to expand...


So my trusty iPad should also type history - nope. No suggestions.


----------



## rdean

daveman said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very definition of conservatism is "lack of change".  They are so terrified of the world, they work desperately to keep things the same.
> 
> Other people change their views over time.  Not Republicans.  They think learning is for snobs and flexibility is a "fault".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> You condemned Prejean for her views on gay marriage.  You gave Obama, who held the exact same views, a free pass.
> 
> If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all.
Click to expand...


But he doesn't hold those views anymore.  That's the point pinhead.

Did that have to be explained?  Remember, Reagan thought Social Security was beginning of the end of this country.  Yet he ended up supporting it.


----------



## Stephanie

A&E is getting hammered over this decision, as they should

boycott this station people...this militant homosexual lobby is out of control...When people can't even speak their views on it

they want people to stay out of their bedrooms, but they can get into your, Freedom of speech

this doesn't help them with acceptance whatsoever..and they only have themselves to blame


----------



## jon_berzerk

martybegan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was A&E wrong to put Phil Robertson on hiatus (Duck Dynasty)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isnt a right or wrong issue.
> 
> And yet again: as a private entity A&E is at liberty to do as it sees fit to protect its interests, placing a cast member on hiatus violates no free speech; and the private citizen viewers are at liberty to stop watching A&E if they disagree with the networks decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, lets shift the debate over to why a broadcast company feels the need to drop someone in a heartbeat due to a personal statement, that in no way threatens anyone, does not call for harm to be done to anyone, and at the end of the day does no real harm to anyone.
> 
> We have come to a point where one side of the political debate is given all sorts of leeway, and when they cross the line it takes a massive outswelling of outrage to even get them a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, someone on the "wrong" side of the debate is an instant target for the "butthurt group of the week's" media campaign to silence them via economic assault.
> 
> We have come to the point where if you offend the wrong 1% of the population you are ostracised without due process, and usually without being able to defend yourself.
> 
> Considering something "offensive" when it really only offends a small vocal minority may not be censorship, but it sure as hell isnt justice.
Click to expand...


*Well then, lets shift the debate over to why a broadcast company feels the need to drop someone in a heartbeat due to a personal statement,*

they worried that they might be destroyed like chic-fil-a was 

after making similar personal comments


----------



## 007

rdean said:


> But he doesn't hold those views anymore.  That's the point pinhead.
> 
> Did that have to be explained?  Remember, Reagan thought Social Security was beginning of the end of this country.  Yet he ended up supporting it.



Well, PINHEAD, this thread isn't about REAGAN or SOCIAL SECURITY, so STOP DERAILING ya pathetic little SCAB!

There will come another day in America when the majority of people have had ENOUGH of this MORONIC POLITICAL CORRECTNESS invented by the LEFTARDS, and it will be UNCOOL to talk their WATERED DOWN, LILLY LIVERED, PUSSIFICATION, DOG CRAP of LABELING everything that is SICK, PERVERTED, DISGUSTING AND ILLEGAL as being some CUTSIE, TOOTSIE thing so you'll THINK it's OK!

Son of a bitch I hate liberals, and all their HORSE SHIT. These people are DISGUSTING examples of human beings.


----------



## 007

Stephanie said:


> A&E is getting hammered over this decision, as they should
> 
> boycott this station people...this militant homosexual lobby is out of control...When people can't even speak their views on it
> 
> they want people to stay out of their bedrooms, but they can get into your, Freedom of speech
> 
> *this doesn't help them with acceptance whatsoever*



That's right... however it does EXPOSE them as the MILITANT, TWO FACED, HYPOCRITICAL BIGOTS they are.

Sad thing about it is, EVERYONE has KNOWN this for DECADES now. They just don't want to ADMIT it. Well when it SLAPS YOU IN THE FACE LIKE THIS, it gets pretty hard to DENY.


----------



## martybegan

jon_berzerk said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isnt a right or wrong issue.
> 
> And yet again: as a private entity A&E is at liberty to do as it sees fit to protect its interests, placing a cast member on hiatus violates no free speech; and the private citizen viewers are at liberty to stop watching A&E if they disagree with the networks decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, lets shift the debate over to why a broadcast company feels the need to drop someone in a heartbeat due to a personal statement, that in no way threatens anyone, does not call for harm to be done to anyone, and at the end of the day does no real harm to anyone.
> 
> We have come to a point where one side of the political debate is given all sorts of leeway, and when they cross the line it takes a massive outswelling of outrage to even get them a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, someone on the "wrong" side of the debate is an instant target for the "butthurt group of the week's" media campaign to silence them via economic assault.
> 
> We have come to the point where if you offend the wrong 1% of the population you are ostracised without due process, and usually without being able to defend yourself.
> 
> Considering something "offensive" when it really only offends a small vocal minority may not be censorship, but it sure as hell isnt justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Well then, lets shift the debate over to why a broadcast company feels the need to drop someone in a heartbeat due to a personal statement,*
> 
> they worried that they might be destroyed like chic-fil-a was
> 
> after making similar personal comments
Click to expand...


Chic-fil-A was destroyed?


----------



## martybegan

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very definition of conservatism is "lack of change".  They are so terrified of the world, they work desperately to keep things the same.
> 
> Other people change their views over time.  Not Republicans.  They think learning is for snobs and flexibility is a "fault".
> 
> 
> 
> Stop desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> You condemned Prejean for her views on gay marriage.  You gave Obama, who held the exact same views, a free pass.
> 
> If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he doesn't hold those views anymore.  That's the point pinhead.
> 
> Did that have to be explained?  Remember, Reagan thought Social Security was beginning of the end of this country.  Yet he ended up supporting it.
Click to expand...


The difference is we all knew Obama was lying (again) when he said at the time he thought marriag, e was between a man and a woman. He always supported gay marriage, he just couldnt say it at the time because he didnt want to piss off his other base, religious blacks. They wouldn't have voted for someone else, but they may have stayed home, and that would have been a problem.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Stephanie said:


> A&E is getting hammered over this decision, as they should
> 
> boycott this station people...this militant homosexual lobby is out of control...When people can't even speak their views on it
> 
> they want people to stay out of their bedrooms, but they can get into your, Freedom of speech
> 
> this doesn't help them with acceptance whatsoever..and they only have themselves to blame



AandE is usually a part of a broader cable network 

the action would be to contact the cable network 

and the folks who advertise on the channel or the channels 

AandE are partnered with 

but the best to action would be to support duck commander 

by purchasing their products 

it is always better to go positive then negative


----------



## 007

People want to send the HOMOS a message that their sick of being BADGERED, BROW BEAT, SHOUTED DOWN, DEMONIZED and SILENCED by the LEFTARDS and HOMOS for exercising their FREEDOM to have THEIR OWN OPINION?

Then stop PLAYING THEIR GAME and START calling HOMOS what they are... HOMOS! They're not GAY. Gay means a person is HAPPY, not HOMO!

Hence forth, HOMOS are to be called what they ARE... HOMO!


----------



## Sunni Man

Stephanie said:


> A&E is getting hammered over this decision, as they should
> 
> boycott this station people...this militant homosexual lobby is out of control...When people can't even speak their views on it


I disagree with boycotting A&E

In fact, more people should make an effort to watch DD.

This will cause the program to sky rocket in the ratings and the share holders will demand DD be left alone because the money is just too good.    ...


----------



## Stephanie

jon_berzerk said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is getting hammered over this decision, as they should
> 
> boycott this station people...this militant homosexual lobby is out of control...When people can't even speak their views on it
> 
> they want people to stay out of their bedrooms, but they can get into your, Freedom of speech
> 
> this doesn't help them with acceptance whatsoever..and they only have themselves to blame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AandE is usually a part of a broader cable network
> 
> the action would be to contact the cable network
> 
> and the folks who advertise on the channel or the channels
> 
> AandE are partnered with
> 
> but the best to action would be to support duck commander
> 
> by purchasing their products
> 
> it is always better to go positive then negative
Click to expand...


all good ideas..I like a lot of the programs on A&E but this is disgusting all over someone's PERSONAL views and opinions on homosexuality..
people are tired of having them shoved in their face


----------



## Sunni Man

I haven't gone duck hunting for the last 20 years.

But I am thinking about buying a DD duck call just to show my support for the family.   .....


----------



## jon_berzerk

Stephanie said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is getting hammered over this decision, as they should
> 
> boycott this station people...this militant homosexual lobby is out of control...When people can't even speak their views on it
> 
> they want people to stay out of their bedrooms, but they can get into your, Freedom of speech
> 
> this doesn't help them with acceptance whatsoever..and they only have themselves to blame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AandE is usually a part of a broader cable network
> 
> the action would be to contact the cable network
> 
> and the folks who advertise on the channel or the channels
> 
> AandE are partnered with
> 
> but the best to action would be to support duck commander
> 
> by purchasing their products
> 
> it is always better to go positive then negative
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all good ideas..I like a lot of the programs on A&E but this is disgusting all over someone's PERSONAL views and opinions on homosexuality..
> people are tired of having them shoved in their face
Click to expand...


another example of tolerance from the tolerant left


----------



## 007

Sunni Man said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is getting hammered over this decision, as they should
> 
> boycott this station people...this militant homosexual lobby is out of control...When people can't even speak their views on it
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with boycotting A&E
> 
> In fact, more people should make an effort to watch DD.
> 
> This will cause the program to sky rocket in the ratings and the share holders will demand DD be left alone because the money is just too good.    ...
Click to expand...


No, bad idea... if you're going to use money to influence someone/a business, the only way they care is if they LOSE money, not GAIN.


----------



## Stephanie

jon_berzerk said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> AandE is usually a part of a broader cable network
> 
> the action would be to contact the cable network
> 
> and the folks who advertise on the channel or the channels
> 
> AandE are partnered with
> 
> but the best to action would be to support duck commander
> 
> by purchasing their products
> 
> it is always better to go positive then negative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all good ideas..I like a lot of the programs on A&E but this is disgusting all over someone's PERSONAL views and opinions on homosexuality..
> people are tired of having them shoved in their face
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another example of tolerance from the tolerant left
Click to expand...


of course...that's that big tent they crow they are
most intolerant people I have ever seen


----------



## jon_berzerk

Stephanie said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> all good ideas..I like a lot of the programs on A&E but this is disgusting all over someone's PERSONAL views and opinions on homosexuality..
> people are tired of having them shoved in their face
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another example of tolerance from the tolerant left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course...that's that big tent they crow they are
> most intolerant people I have ever seen
Click to expand...


lockstep leftist crowd speak

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsT1n2m0004]A Speaker at Zuccotti Park - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## M14 Shooter

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very definition of conservatism is "lack of change".  They are so terrified of the world, they work desperately to keep things the same.
> 
> Other people change their views over time.  Not Republicans.  They think learning is for snobs and flexibility is a "fault".
Click to expand...

In other wrords...
You know you have no way to defend the hypocrisy illustrated by that post and so want to change the subject.


----------



## Trajan

daveman said:


>



obama gets to evolve, the rest? Let them eat static or...let them eat....



The host admits he went overboard in saying that the governor deserved to have someone sh-t in her mouth.

MSNBC's Martin Bashir Apologizes to Sarah Palin Over 'Offensive' Slavery Remarks - TheWrap


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Michael Richards made racist comments.  He hasn't worked since.
> 
> Mel Gibson made anti-Semetic Comments. He hasn't worked since.
> 
> There are lines you don't cross.
Click to expand...


Both of those people are still working. In fact, Richards just started a new comedy in the past few months.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sunni Man said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is getting hammered over this decision, as they should
> 
> boycott this station people...this militant homosexual lobby is out of control...When people can't even speak their views on it
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with boycotting A&E
> 
> In fact, more people should make an effort to watch DD.
> 
> This will cause the program to sky rocket in the ratings and the share holders will demand DD be left alone because the money is just too good.    ...
Click to expand...


I would say that we should watch DD and only DD on A&E.


----------



## mskafka

When Phil and Jase didn't attend the interview with Barbara Walters, I knew that something bad was coming.  One reaction:

[ame=http://youtu.be/AFnP9XQk65c]'Duck Dynasty' Star Skips Barbara Walters Interview to Go Hunting - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Pogo

BDBoop said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, thanatos, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has you outclassed in the history department. He and I have had debates on histrionics that would exceed your ability to comprehend. One of my favorite debate partners to tell you the truth. To say you heed history and are informed of current events is a misnomer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Histrionics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> I'm wondering if that's not why I had an hysteria-ectomy.
Click to expand...


Damn! You coulda had _*her*_trionics.


----------



## TemplarKormac

BDBoop said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Histrionics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History I mean, damn that spell check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my trusty iPad should also type history - nope. No suggestions.
Click to expand...


Funny, I'm not typing on an iPad. I'm using Firefox on a Desktop PC, it has a built in spellchecker. If I make a typo, it underlines words in a red wavy line. Sometimes I right click the word and click on the correct spelling, this time I clicked on the wrong suggestion. Instead of histrionics, its historicity.  Now, please, stop engaging me in frivolous debates.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Spell Check is cheating.  I refuse to use em. If I make a typo, I make a typo. I'm not perfect nor interested in trying to appear as such. And often the last thing I want is some AI interupting a train of thought with a typo alert.


----------



## TemplarKormac

candycorn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, come to think of it, there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
Click to expand...


Notice how a plethora of liberals and conservatives alike have nothing substantive to say in response to my thread. All the meanwhile proving each and every point.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Delta4Embassy said:


> Spell Check is cheating.  I refuse to use em. If I make a typo, I make a typo. I'm not perfect nor interested in trying to appear as such. And often the last thing I want is some AI interrupting a train of thought with a typo alert.



I am a grammar freak, and as such an active editor. I correct the typos after I put the thought on paper. Am I perfect at it? No. But the less typos I make the clearer my message. It isn't a cheat, it's a tool.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sir crossed a line. I don't make a habit of sabotaging free thought, as both parties have done. Would I lie about being a libertarian given how poorly they're viewed? Sorry bub, until you get to know me, you aren't allowed to judge me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said it yourself you dishonest hack
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Now you put words in my mouth?
Click to expand...


Now you lying?  You didn't day you stay registered ad s republican so you can vote in their primary? And since you arrogantly tout being a libertarian it means you are a dishonest hack trying to sabotage republicans. Or are you just a coward?

tapatalk post


----------



## Delta4Embassy

TemplarKormac said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, come to think of it, there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how a plethora of liberals and conservatives alike have nothing substantive to say in response to my thread. All the meanwhile proving each and every point.
Click to expand...


Aye, trying to get actual debate and disscourse is perhaps unrealistic online. If you can't punch people in the face, you're only going to get one-liners most of the time.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ Yet another demonstration of the idiocy the OP is concerned about.
> 
> This one tries to conflate a political party with a personal character trait.  What a maroon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just heed history and am informed of current events. To bad you believe in fairy tales
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, thanatos,  [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has you outclassed in the history department. He and I have had debates on historicity that would exceed your ability to comprehend. One of my favorite debate partners to tell you the truth. To say you heed history and are informed of current events is a misnomer.
Click to expand...


Coming from a dishonest act like you that doesn't mean much the fact is if this magical ship happened why is it all the racist from the 60s state Democrats into the f****** died you can find maybe two that became Republicans. You like every other dishonest liberal round believe all the lies told you

tapatalk post


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said it yourself you dishonest hack
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Now you put words in my mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you lying?  You didn't day you stay registered ad s republican so you can vote in their primary? And since you arrogantly tout being a libertarian it means you are a dishonest hack trying to sabotage republicans. Or are you just a coward?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I love how you're calling me a coward and accusing me of "sabotaging" republicans. I hate to break it to you, my wayward friend, the Republicans are sabotaging themselves. So are the Democrats. 

I'm registered as a Republican because my state is rather intolerant to Liberatrians. I will not be denied the right to vote in my own state merely for the sake of my state's intolerance.


----------



## thanatos144

JakeStarkey said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they ever teach you manners in school? Apparently not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach you  to be a dishonest f***?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thanatos is lost when it comes to understanding factual reasoning and decent behavior.
Click to expand...


Do you honestly think anybody cares what take seriously what your lying ass says?

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, how interesting.
> 
> Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, knock it off. You've made it clear you've been in a bad mood, stop taking it out on me. Please?
Click to expand...


Stop being an arrogant lying prick

tapatalk post


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, how interesting.
> 
> Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, knock it off. You've made it clear you've been in a bad mood, stop taking it out on me. Please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being an arrogant lying prick
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Geez, stop talking. 

Get off the iPhone/iPad and go live your life. You're a full grown adult human being. Must be sad that all you have to do is provoke people and call them names, on a mobile device.


----------



## thanatos144

candycorn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, come to think of it, there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Complete sentences, astute observations, valid points. Very refreshing from the usual "Nuh uh!" replies or "You're a libtard" type posts.
> 
> Grew sick of the constant 'monkies throwing feces' nature of American politics myself. So much so I gave up on participating altogether. While I identify as a liberal with some conservative positions (death penalty, abortion, etc.) I refuse to vote or get involed beyond discussing it online and watching the news. If we start electing people not beholden to special interests, taking what amounts to bribes and only ever saying what's been scored and tested and written by professional speech writers, then I'll get involved real quick. But thus far, every politician of every stripe is a complete puppet of whoever got them elected. Empty shirts all of them.
> 
> Politicians of today bear no resemblance to the ones who got this country up and running. And while the Founders were far from perfect, they're a lot better than the mouthpieces we have now. No one today would dare stand up and say what they really think, and those that do always 'walk back their comments' the very next day if they even wait that long. If no one's gonna stand up for what they believe, why should we believe in them?
> 
> "Politicians make bad politicians." Me.
> 
> We need to stop electing professional liars and start getting leaders who're actually willing to lead. Not follow. If not willing to stand up for what you believe in risking your political office, sit the hell down and shut that silly little hole below you nose. We've had enough from your ilk. Why we continue to settle for 3rd and 4th rate candidates then act all surprised when they do poorly and drive this country closer and closer to the cliff is mind-boggling.
> 
> "There's no IQ requirement to run for Congress." (paraphrased remark from "Religulous")
> 
> Time to get leaders with IQs above 80. Ones who can do more than read prepared statements and look pretty on tv. Politicians who get into office intending to stay there until they die doing only whatever their donors want, and saying only what makes them popular is driving this country off a cliff. In a time when other countries are seeing mass protests and uprisings, how much longer til we get that here?
> 
> Over a decade of war loosing to a 19th century society, national debt so massive it can never be paid off, wasteful spending everywhere, unfair taxes, and leaders feathering their own nests instead of representing their constiuents as they swore oaths to do? What's it take before the people say enough. Time for drastic change.
> 
> ...Wow, they're right, ya do get more conservative in your 40s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great...
> 
> So when are you going to file to run for office?
> 
> What's that you say?  You're not going to do it?  You're too busy...can't be bothered...have other obligations?
> 
> Did Washington have anything going on?  Did Andrew Jackson?  Did Teddy Roosevelt?  Did San Ervin?  Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, decided to leave that to become the VP and take what was probably a 8-10 MILLION DOLLAR pay cut.  At that time, he had 3 heart attacks in the bank already.  You think he could have just sat there in Dallas and coutned his millions?  Yes...he could have  but, like him or loathe him, he chose to serve.
> 
> Why aren't you?
> 
> This is the problem with American politics...too few are willing to serve.  I don't think politics is that important myself in the grander scheme of life.  When you have a strong Constitution, the actors on the stage reading the lines means much.  What's the old saying; the government was built by giants to be run by pygmies?  We have a great many pygmies in all levels of government.
> 
> Templar's revelation is as hilarious as it is hollow.  Partisans on message boards are partisan because of one or two reasons; they actually believe their BS or they take joy in slinging insults.  Both Parties are responsible for the state of affairs.  Both parties are totally out to lunch fiscally.  Both parties have failed in their ever-repeated urge to change.  So I'm a values voters.  Currently, the Dems are closer to my values than the GOP.  Frankly, I think you have to be soft between the ears to share the same values as the GOP but that's a topic for another thread.
> 
> Meanwhile, we get the government we deserve.  If the American people are apathetic (and they are), the government is apathetic.  Case in point, we're $17T in debt and there is zero outrage in the street.
Click to expand...


I must not have read that post correctly. I am sure that Templar sad that you cannot have your own opinion if your democrat or republican we are all mindless ignorant robots according to him

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear it quite often in this day and age, "freedom of opinion." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, come to think of it, there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
> 
> But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Mia Love, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
> 
> The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us. Our souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how a plethora of liberals and conservatives alike have nothing substantive to say in response to my thread. All the meanwhile proving each and every point.
Click to expand...


The only thing you're noticing if you ignoring the fact that you were proven wrong time and time again. Your little narcissistic rant has been shown for nothing what you need to be scene it somehow more special than the rest of America

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Now you put words in my mouth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you lying?  You didn't day you stay registered ad s republican so you can vote in their primary? And since you arrogantly tout being a libertarian it means you are a dishonest hack trying to sabotage republicans. Or are you just a coward?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you're calling me a coward and accusing me of "sabotaging" republicans. I hate to break it to you, my wayward friend, the Republicans are sabotaging themselves. So are the Democrats.
> 
> I'm registered as a Republican because my state is rather intolerant to Liberatrians. I will not be denied the right to vote in my own state merely for the sake of my state's intolerance.
Click to expand...


Now it's in tolerance that you've dishonestly vote in Republican primaries? I do believe you're a coward. You don't have the balls to just be a libertarian no instead you registered Republican so you can decide to keep  voting in the Republican primary hoping you can destroy the party from the inside but you're right you're too much of a small fry to mean anything

tapatalk post


----------



## Pogo

thanatos144 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how a plethora of liberals and conservatives alike have nothing substantive to say in response to my thread. All the meanwhile proving each and every point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you're noticing if you ignoring the fact that you were proven wrong time and time again. Your little narcissistic rant has been shown for nothing what you need to be scene it somehow more special than the rest of America
Click to expand...


Danth's Law is narcissism in a single line, Gummo.  Look in the mirror.  Brace yourself first.

I strongly recommend we all put this fuckhead on ignore.  He's obviously got zilch to contribute here and his only purpose is to generate acrimony.  It's probably because of his pathetically powerless personal life but that's not our problem.  Fuck him.  Ignore the troll and let's get back to what could still be a worthy topic.


----------



## jasonnfree

Old Rocks said:


> This is a funny thread. President Obama is barely center left. The ACA is basically the health care plan of Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Yet now they label it Communistic. That is how far to the right that the GOP has moved. The GOP lost the minorities because they adapted a 21st Century version of the southern strategy. The racist and often putrid referances to the Hispanic community of the type we have seen on this board and even repeated by some in the official GOP have turned off a community that is normally fairly conservative.
> 
> Ignoring the demograpics of the US Citizens is a sure fire way to end up short at the ballot box.



Obama center left you say.  I say barely.  Usually he's center but strays into right field a little too much.  You're  the only one that posted where Obama care was hatched.  In a right wing funded think tank.  A link I found that's useful below.

The Economic Populist | Speak Your Mind 2 Cents at a Time


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Michael Richards made racist comments.  He hasn't worked since.
> 
> Mel Gibson made anti-Semetic Comments. He hasn't worked since.
> 
> There are lines you don't cross.
Click to expand...


Mel Gibson's made 4 or 5 movies since he made those marks

tapatalk post


----------



## AquaAthena

AquaAthena said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV
> 
> 
> Reading this, I feel this the same kind of drama that some liberal media is known for. Wasn't there outcry from some liberals when Miss California was also asked her honest opinion? In my opinion, GLAAD is becoming the obnoxious drama queen that everyone wants to ignore, and it is hurting the image of homosexuals as a group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Duck Dynasty Men before their beards:
> 
> Si:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Phil:* ( high-school  and college football player and almost went pro: )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Willie:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Brothers in high-school:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Brothers, small: aww*
Click to expand...


All growed up....


----------



## AceRothstein

The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?


----------



## bodecea

007 said:


> People want to send the HOMOS a message that their sick of being BADGERED, BROW BEAT, SHOUTED DOWN, DEMONIZED and SILENCED by the LEFTARDS and HOMOS for exercising their FREEDOM to have THEIR OWN OPINION?
> 
> Then stop PLAYING THEIR GAME and START calling HOMOS what they are... HOMOS! They're not GAY. Gay means a person is HAPPY, not HOMO!
> 
> Hence forth, HOMOS are to be called what they ARE... HOMO!



I am gay and I think this was a stupid decision, Pole Rider......but feel free to broad brush all your fellow gay Americans.


----------



## thanatos144

Pogo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how a plethora of liberals and conservatives alike have nothing substantive to say in response to my thread. All the meanwhile proving each and every point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you're noticing if you ignoring the fact that you were proven wrong time and time again. Your little narcissistic rant has been shown for nothing what you need to be scene it somehow more special than the rest of America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danth's Law is narcissism in a single line, Gummo.  Look in the mirror.  Brace yourself first.
> 
> I strongly recommend we all put this fuckhead on ignore.  He's obviously got zilch to contribute here and his only purpose is to generate acrimony.  It's probably because of his pathetically powerless personal life but that's not our problem.  Fuck him.  Ignore the troll and let's get back to what could still be a worthy topic.
Click to expand...


The only troll here is you. He made in OP in which he said that if you have a publican or Democrat you have no freedom of opinion you give it up like mindless robot and then he taunted how great he was because he was a libertarian arrogant and narcissistic attitude and what did I do shine a light on what b******* it actually was. 

tapatalk post


----------



## martybegan

AceRothstein said:


> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?



They ticked off thier fan base, not the chattering classes. and they didnt get insta-punted like Phil did.


----------



## Mojo2

Moonglow said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prepared properly, beaver is good eatin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord I'm resisting so many inappropriate jokes right now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am trying to leave the beaver open to comments.
Click to expand...


Leaving the "beaver open" and your avi spends all day and night showing his ass.

You are a real attention whoring exhibitionist aren't you?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Moonglow said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the knee slappin' humor of a beaver in a trap.
Click to expand...


Yes, it will be quite delightful to watch AE try to get out of this one.  Lol.


----------



## thanatos144

AceRothstein said:


> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?



Your point is invalid because of people don't stop watching duck dynasty because of what Phil  said that's fine but firing him for expressing his beliefs  that's pretty fascist but you don't see that since you are a fascist

tapatalk post


----------



## Avatar4321

AceRothstein said:


> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?



I remember. I dont remember calling for the Dixie Chicks to be fired. I just thought that if people wanted to no longer go to their concerts and buy their music because of what they said, they should be free to.

And if people choose to not watch DD or buy their products because of what Phil said, nothing is stopping them. That doesn't change the fact that A&E is stupid to try to kick Phil off the show that is their golden goose. Especially when all they had to do is say, his personal views don't reflect those of our station and leave it at that.

Quite frankly, I didn't care about the Dixie Chicks then and I don't now. I do care about DD because it's freaking hilarious and I enjoy the family time watching these good men go through life. And I sure as heck don't think people should be in essence fired for quoting the Bible.


----------



## thanatos144

bodecea said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People want to send the HOMOS a message that their sick of being BADGERED, BROW BEAT, SHOUTED DOWN, DEMONIZED and SILENCED by the LEFTARDS and HOMOS for exercising their FREEDOM to have THEIR OWN OPINION?
> 
> Then stop PLAYING THEIR GAME and START calling HOMOS what they are... HOMOS! They're not GAY. Gay means a person is HAPPY, not HOMO!
> 
> Hence forth, HOMOS are to be called what they ARE... HOMO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am gay and I think this was a stupid decision, Pole Rider......but feel free to broad brush all your fellow gay Americans.
Click to expand...


Why do you always feel the need to inform us that you're gay? We all already know this you don't have to keep telling us.

tapatalk post


----------



## AceRothstein

martybegan said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ticked off thier fan base, not the chattering classes. and they didnt get insta-punted like Phil did.
Click to expand...


It is the same fucking situation.  You think Limbaugh was a Dixie Chicks fan?  He spearheaded the boycott of them.


----------



## TemplarKormac

thanatos144 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you're noticing if you ignoring the fact that you were proven wrong time and time again. Your little narcissistic rant has been shown for nothing what you need to be scene it somehow more special than the rest of America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danth's Law is narcissism in a single line, Gummo.  Look in the mirror.  Brace yourself first.
> 
> I strongly recommend we all put this fuckhead on ignore.  He's obviously got zilch to contribute here and his only purpose is to generate acrimony.  It's probably because of his pathetically powerless personal life but that's not our problem.  Fuck him.  Ignore the troll and let's get back to what could still be a worthy topic.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only troll here is you. He made in OP in which he said that if you have a publican or Democrat you have no freedom of opinion you give it up like mindless robot and then he taunted how great he was because he was a libertarian arrogant and narcissistic attitude and what did I do shine a light on what b******* it actually was.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


(guffaws)

You don't know who's the real troll here do you? Anyhow, I'll heed [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] 's advice and put you on my ignore list. Good riddance.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

This is backfiring on A & E on a epic scale.


----------



## martybegan

AceRothstein said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ticked off thier fan base, not the chattering classes. and they didnt get insta-punted like Phil did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the same fucking situation.  You think Limbaugh was a Dixie Chicks fan?  He spearheaded the boycott of them.
Click to expand...


And what happened to them?

Yes, they lost sales, yes there was a kinda sorta boycott. What did not happen was the instant dropping of them by thier label the second the controversial issues came to light. It took time for people to show thier displeasure, and it was mostly via the fans themselves.  

GLAAD released an "i'm pissed off" statement, and BOOM, phil was thrown under the bus. There hasnt even been enough TIME to see if the fans of the show run away, he's been punted simply due to a pressure groups spouting off.

Note GWB's response, to a direct comment, as opposed to GLAADs, which was a general comment:



> President Bush responded to the controversy in an interview with Tom Brokaw on April 24:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say ... they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq ...
Click to expand...


----------



## Stephanie

AceRothstein said:


> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?



They ticked off their fans and boycotted the band...Not some television station they worked on..big difference

it's always an excuse with you liberals..


----------



## bodecea

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People want to send the HOMOS a message that their sick of being BADGERED, BROW BEAT, SHOUTED DOWN, DEMONIZED and SILENCED by the LEFTARDS and HOMOS for exercising their FREEDOM to have THEIR OWN OPINION?
> 
> Then stop PLAYING THEIR GAME and START calling HOMOS what they are... HOMOS! They're not GAY. Gay means a person is HAPPY, not HOMO!
> 
> Hence forth, HOMOS are to be called what they ARE... HOMO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am gay and I think this was a stupid decision, Pole Rider......but feel free to broad brush all your fellow gay Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you always feel the need to inform us that you're gay? We all already know this you don't have to keep telling us.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

Kindly look at the post I was replying to.   What group was Pole Rider bashing?


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Danth's Law is narcissism in a single line, Gummo.  Look in the mirror.  Brace yourself first.
> 
> I strongly recommend we all put this fuckhead on ignore.  He's obviously got zilch to contribute here and his only purpose is to generate acrimony.  It's probably because of his pathetically powerless personal life but that's not our problem.  Fuck him.  Ignore the troll and let's get back to what could still be a worthy topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only troll here is you. He made in OP in which he said that if you have a publican or Democrat you have no freedom of opinion you give it up like mindless robot and then he taunted how great he was because he was a libertarian arrogant and narcissistic attitude and what did I do shine a light on what b******* it actually was.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (guffaws)
> 
> You don't know who's the real troll here do you? Anyhow, I'll heed [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] 's advice and put you on my ignore list. Good riddance.
Click to expand...


That's the way to do it like any good progressive ignore those who speak the truth about you tell me how that works out for you lost all respect for you in this thread you become nothing more than a pathetic narcissist

tapatalk post


----------



## Againsheila

Avatar4321 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duck Dynasty.  LOL.  Not my type of show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife thought so at first too. but as we watched a few episodes, we all came to love it.
> 
> First episode i saw Jace wanted his own office and Willie wouldn't give him one. So some of the guys were just like "Well, why don't we just build one then." So they built him one that day while Willie was away.
> 
> I was just like. Now this is what America should be. If we want something, we do something about it instead of waiting for others to give us what we want.
Click to expand...


I liked the bee episode.  They wanted the honey but didn't know how to get it.  They decided to use the wet vac to vacuum up the bees.  Of course, they swarmed and Uncle Si drove away leaving Willie and crying "Every man to himself!"  I laughed so hard.

And you'll remember were the brother's office ended up being at the end of that episode?  Yeah, a goat shed.  Doing it yourself, doesn't always work, does it?


----------



## Moonglow

bodecea said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People want to send the HOMOS a message that their sick of being BADGERED, BROW BEAT, SHOUTED DOWN, DEMONIZED and SILENCED by the LEFTARDS and HOMOS for exercising their FREEDOM to have THEIR OWN OPINION?
> 
> Then stop PLAYING THEIR GAME and START calling HOMOS what they are... HOMOS! They're not GAY. Gay means a person is HAPPY, not HOMO!
> 
> Hence forth, HOMOS are to be called what they ARE... HOMO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am gay and I think this was a stupid decision, Pole Rider......but feel free to broad brush all your fellow gay Americans.
Click to expand...


When gays were being killed, brow beaten, ostracized from society 007 felt good about himself.


----------



## Moonglow

Mojo2 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord I'm resisting so many inappropriate jokes right now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to leave the beaver open to comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving the "beaver open" and your avi spends all day and night showing his ass.
> 
> You are a real attention whoring exhibitionist aren't you?
Click to expand...


you must be into man pussy.


----------



## thanatos144

bodecea said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am gay and I think this was a stupid decision, Pole Rider......but feel free to broad brush all your fellow gay Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always feel the need to inform us that you're gay? We all already know this you don't have to keep telling us.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kindly look at the post I was replying to.   What group was Pole Rider bashing?
Click to expand...


The the fascist

tapatalk post


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Moonglow said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People want to send the HOMOS a message that their sick of being BADGERED, BROW BEAT, SHOUTED DOWN, DEMONIZED and SILENCED by the LEFTARDS and HOMOS for exercising their FREEDOM to have THEIR OWN OPINION?
> 
> Then stop PLAYING THEIR GAME and START calling HOMOS what they are... HOMOS! They're not GAY. Gay means a person is HAPPY, not HOMO!
> 
> Hence forth, HOMOS are to be called what they ARE... HOMO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am gay and I think this was a stupid decision, Pole Rider......but feel free to broad brush all your fellow gay Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When gays were being killed, brow beaten, ostracized from society 007 felt good about himself.
Click to expand...


Iran does that yet O makes deals with them.  How do you reconcile that?


----------



## bodecea

Stephanie said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ticked off their fans and boycotted the band...Not some television station they worked on..big difference
> 
> it's always an excuse with you liberals..
Click to expand...


Except radio stations refused to play their music for awhile....it wasn't just fans.


----------



## Moonglow

martybegan said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ticked off thier fan base, not the chattering classes. and they didnt get insta-punted like Phil did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the same fucking situation.  You think Limbaugh was a Dixie Chicks fan?  He spearheaded the boycott of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what happened to them?
> 
> Yes, they lost sales, yes there was a kinda sorta boycott. What did not happen was the instant dropping of them by thier label the second the controversial issues came to light. It took time for people to show thier displeasure, and it was mostly via the fans themselves.
> 
> GLAAD released an "i'm pissed off" statement, and BOOM, phil was thrown under the bus. There hasnt even been enough TIME to see if the fans of the show run away, he's been punted simply due to a pressure groups spouting off.
> 
> Note GWB's response, to a direct comment, as opposed to GLAADs, which was a general comment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Bush responded to the controversy in an interview with Tom Brokaw on April 24:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say ... they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


'Duck Dynasty' Dad Suspended Following Anti-Gay Remarks

'Duck Dynasty' Dad Suspended Following Anti-Gay Remarks | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV


----------



## Moonglow

Wal Mart home office has many homosexual employees. You will see Wal Mart dropping Duck hunters products.

A Christian organization has boycotted Duck Dynasty over their wine labeled after their show.


----------



## Moonglow

LordBrownTrout said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am gay and I think this was a stupid decision, Pole Rider......but feel free to broad brush all your fellow gay Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When gays were being killed, brow beaten, ostracized from society 007 felt good about himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran does that yet O makes deals with them.  How do you reconcile that?
Click to expand...


007 is from Iran? No wonder his accent is so heavy.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

AceRothstein said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ticked off thier fan base, not the chattering classes. and they didnt get insta-punted like Phil did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the same fucking situation.  You think Limbaugh was a Dixie Chicks fan?  He spearheaded the boycott of them.
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges moron!

The fans boycotted the Dixie Chicks that led to their demise. They weren't fired or put on hiatus by anyone for their opinion.

If DD fans don't like the opinion of Phil they can boycott the show.

In other words, let the fans decide what offends them and not let the producers or the networks make that decision for them.


----------



## Stephanie

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People want to send the HOMOS a message that their sick of being BADGERED, BROW BEAT, SHOUTED DOWN, DEMONIZED and SILENCED by the LEFTARDS and HOMOS for exercising their FREEDOM to have THEIR OWN OPINION?
> 
> Then stop PLAYING THEIR GAME and START calling HOMOS what they are... HOMOS! They're not GAY. Gay means a person is HAPPY, not HOMO!
> 
> Hence forth, HOMOS are to be called what they ARE... HOMO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am gay and I think this was a stupid decision, Pole Rider......but feel free to broad brush all your fellow gay Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you always feel the need to inform us that you're gay? We all already know this you don't have to keep telling us.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...



no kidding...we all need to start our post, hi, I'm straight, I'm black, I'm rich, I'm poor..
Gay Amercians...holy smokes...I'm short, so I guess that makes me a, short Amercian...good frikken grief


----------



## Katzndogz

If you want to let A&E know how you feel you can do it here.

A&E contact info 

Ms. Abbe Raven, CEO A&E Television Networks 235 East 45th St. New York, NY 10017 ABBE RAVEN (CEO) Abbe.Raven@aetn.com (212) 210-9007

WHITNEY GOIT (SR. EVP) whitney.goit@aetn.com ROBERT DEBITETTO (EVP) robert.debitetto@aetn.com 

COLLEEN CONWAY (Director of Non-Fiction Programming) colleen.conway@aetn.com GENERAL EMAIL: ae.viewerrelations@aetv.com 

GENERAL TELEPHONE: (212) 210-1400


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Moonglow said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> When gays were being killed, brow beaten, ostracized from society 007 felt good about himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran does that yet O makes deals with them.  How do you reconcile that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 007 is from Iran? No wonder his accent is so heavy.
Click to expand...


No, the reference to gays being beaten and hung and O making deals with leaders who do this?


----------



## Stephanie

Another one

SNIP:




Thursday, December 19, 2013


Send A Fax/Contact A&E Networks For Slamming Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson 




The oddest thing is that A&E Networks has been constantly censoring the Ducks for mentioning Christ or God in many of the shows. Yet, cursing and other profanities are not bleeped out to my knowledge on A&E's other shows.

 Send a message to Mel Berning - President of Sales at A&E by faxing him at

2122101308

There are free fax services on the net such as GotFreeFax.Com and they will let you send a hard copy letter directly to A&E offices.




Twitter A&E at @AETV    Facebook A&E at https://www.facebook.com/AETV

ALL of it here
JoeClarke.Net


----------



## 007

Wake said:


> 'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV



And another thing, there was nothing INCENDIARY about P.R.'s comments. They were simple quotes straight out of the BIBLE. So if you think his comments WERE incendiary, then you have a BIGGER problem than P.R.

It's time to SHUT DOWN this OUT OF CONTROL game the HOMOS have been playing, to BADGER, BULLY, BROW BEAT, SHOUT DOWN and SILENCE anyone who DARES utter ONE WORD against their precious little SEXUAL PERVERSION. TIMES UP! GAMES OVER! It's time for THEM to SHUT THE FUCK UP, and normal people ONCE AGAIN to SPEAK THEIR MIND about how they feel about this disgusting sexual perversion called HOMOSEXUALITY.

Gay... pfft... there is NOTHING *GAY* about being a QUEER. It's a horrible, destructive, twisted, morally corrupt, disgustingly sick sexual perversion that is 100% a MENTAL ILLNESS.


----------



## rightwinger

martybegan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the knee slappin' humor of a beaver in a trap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prepared properly, beaver is good eatin.
Click to expand...


I've never been opposed to eating beaver


----------



## tinydancer

Katzndogz said:


> If you want to let A&E know how you feel you can do it here.
> 
> A&E contact info
> 
> Ms. Abbe Raven, CEO A&E Television Networks 235 East 45th St. New York, NY 10017 ABBE RAVEN (CEO) Abbe.Raven@aetn.com (212) 210-9007
> 
> WHITNEY GOIT (SR. EVP) whitney.goit@aetn.com ROBERT DEBITETTO (EVP) robert.debitetto@aetn.com
> 
> COLLEEN CONWAY (Director of Non-Fiction Programming) colleen.conway@aetn.com GENERAL EMAIL: ae.viewerrelations@aetv.com
> 
> GENERAL TELEPHONE: (212) 210-1400



Thanks for the links. My husband wants me to suggest to A&E to develop a new show called *Powder Puff Dynasty*. Let's see what the ratings will be.


----------



## Avatar4321

You know it's interesting, the Pope holds the same views on Homosexuality as Phil does. And he is being applauded by the left as the person of the year and Phil is being castigated.

It's just amusing to see what some find offensive.


----------



## Stephanie

AceRothstein said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ticked off thier fan base, not the chattering classes. and they didnt get insta-punted like Phil did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the same fucking situation.  You think Limbaugh was a Dixie Chicks fan?  He spearheaded the boycott of them.
Click to expand...



You can still go see them in concert or BUY their frikken records for crying out loud

how about living in the here and now


----------



## Avatar4321

Againsheila said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duck Dynasty.  LOL.  Not my type of show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife thought so at first too. but as we watched a few episodes, we all came to love it.
> 
> First episode i saw Jace wanted his own office and Willie wouldn't give him one. So some of the guys were just like "Well, why don't we just build one then." So they built him one that day while Willie was away.
> 
> I was just like. Now this is what America should be. If we want something, we do something about it instead of waiting for others to give us what we want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I liked the bee episode.  They wanted the honey but didn't know how to get it.  They decided to use the wet vac to vacuum up the bees.  Of course, they swarmed and Uncle Si drove away leaving Willie and crying "Every man to himself!"  I laughed so hard.
> 
> And you'll remember were the brother's office ended up being at the end of that episode?  Yeah, a goat shed.  Doing it yourself, doesn't always work, does it?
Click to expand...


no it doesn't. I just like that attitude.


----------



## tinydancer

​


Moonglow said:


> Wal Mart home office has many homosexual employees. You will see Wal Mart dropping Duck hunters products.
> 
> A Christian organization has boycotted Duck Dynasty over their wine labeled after their show.



I love love this hate on you and others have for Duck Dynasty now. Shows your true colors. You can't tolerate their Christian beliefs. 

Now go on out and start attacking Islam will you? And attack all Imams and Muslims.

They don't approve of fudge packers either.


----------



## Stephanie

tinydancer said:


> ​
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wal Mart home office has many homosexual employees. You will see Wal Mart dropping Duck hunters products.
> 
> A Christian organization has boycotted Duck Dynasty over their wine labeled after their show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love love this hate on you and others have for Duck Dynasty now. Shows your true colors. You can't tolerate their Christian beliefs.
> 
> Now go on out and start attacking Islam will you? And attack all Imams and Muslims.
> 
> They don't approve of fudge packers either.
Click to expand...



they are just showing how tolerant they are
remember they are the people of the "big tent"


----------



## Stephanie

Almost 8000 comments with this article at Yahoo

NOT looking good for A&E

'Duck Dynasty' Dad Suspended Following Anti-Gay Remarks | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV


----------



## Againsheila

Stephanie said:


> Another one
> 
> SNIP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thursday, December 19, 2013
> 
> 
> Send A Fax/Contact A&E Networks For Slamming Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The oddest thing is that A&E Networks has been constantly censoring the Ducks for mentioning Christ or God in many of the shows. Yet, cursing and other profanities are not bleeped out to my knowledge on A&E's other shows.
> 
> Send a message to Mel Berning - President of Sales at A&E by faxing him at
> 
> 2122101308
> 
> There are free fax services on the net such as GotFreeFax.Com and they will let you send a hard copy letter directly to A&E offices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twitter A&E at @AETV    Facebook A&E at https://www.facebook.com/AETV
> 
> ALL of it here
> JoeClarke.Net



here's another good one.  On Duck Dynasty, they have occasional bleeps.  Not because they are cussing, but because A&E wants them to be cussing.


----------



## Avatar4321

Why would it be good for A&E? it was a bad move on their part.

I know they've already gotten at least one offer from another station if the show is canceled there.

A man shouldn't be punished for stating his religious beliefs.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Will AE walk this back?


----------



## Stephanie

Againsheila said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one
> 
> SNIP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thursday, December 19, 2013
> 
> 
> Send A Fax/Contact A&E Networks For Slamming Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The oddest thing is that A&E Networks has been constantly censoring the Ducks for mentioning Christ or God in many of the shows. Yet, cursing and other profanities are not bleeped out to my knowledge on A&E's other shows.
> 
> Send a message to Mel Berning - President of Sales at A&E by faxing him at
> 
> 2122101308
> 
> There are free fax services on the net such as GotFreeFax.Com and they will let you send a hard copy letter directly to A&E offices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twitter A&E at @AETV    Facebook A&E at https://www.facebook.com/AETV
> 
> ALL of it here
> JoeClarke.Net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here's another good one.  On Duck Dynasty, they have occasional bleeps.  Not because they are cussing, but because A&E wants them to be cussing.
Click to expand...


you post just to see yourself post?
good grief again


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

Here comes Sarah Palin defending Phil Robertson.

Sarah Palin defends 'Duck Dynasty' star - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com


----------



## Stephanie

I hope they go to another station

Would serve A&E right


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal has made a official statement:

*Jindal: 'Messed Up Situation When Miley Cyrus Gets a Laugh, and Phil Robertson Gets Suspended'*
Jindal: 'Messed Up Situation When Miley Cyrus Gets a Laugh, and Phil Robertson Gets Suspended' | The Weekly Standard


----------



## daveman

BDBoop said:


> In a quote that may raise even more eyebrows than his feelings about gays, Robertson claims he "never" saw black people mistreated during the pre-civil rights era in his home state, and strongly suggests that African Americans were more content under Jim Crow.
> 
> "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash," he said.  "They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white peoplenot a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson sounds off on gays, civil rights - latimes.com
> 
> Yup! Raised my eyebrows. Still don't think he deserved the boot, though.
Click to expand...

He was not suggesting blacks were content under Jim Crow.

He was saying Jim Crow didn't extend to rural areas.  It was strictly an urban phenomenon.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Michael Richards made racist comments.  He hasn't worked since.
Click to expand...

He made his comments in 2006.  Since then, he's been in a movie, a short film, and two television series.


JoeB131 said:


> Mel Gibson made anti-Semetic Comments. He hasn't worked since.


He made no anti-Semitic comments.  He made racist comments in 2010, and since then has worked in four movies. 



JoeB131 said:


> There are lines you don't cross.


Why do you keep making incorrect statements?


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> But he doesn't hold those views anymore.  That's the point pinhead.
> 
> Did that have to be explained?  Remember, Reagan thought Social Security was beginning of the end of this country.  Yet he ended up supporting it.


No, that's not the point at all.

You condemned Prejean's view of marriage.  You were silent on Obama's view of marriage.

Period.  End of story.  You simply cannot defend your hypocrisy in this matter -- nor will you acknowledge it.


----------



## Moonglow

tinydancer said:


> ​
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wal Mart home office has many homosexual employees. You will see Wal Mart dropping Duck hunters products.
> 
> A Christian organization has boycotted Duck Dynasty over their wine labeled after their show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love love this hate on you and others have for Duck Dynasty now. Shows your true colors. You can't tolerate their Christian beliefs.
> 
> Now go on out and start attacking Islam will you? And attack all Imams and Muslims.
> 
> They don't approve of fudge packers either.
Click to expand...


I don't hate _Duck Dynasty_, I do not watch it, just like a plethora of other shows..
Why?
I was a radio/TV/Film/theater major in jr. high, high school and college. I worked so much satiating that hideous bitch goddess entertainment that I find no joy in watching TV.The one exceptions is the History Channel and the Military channel(some programming). I do watch more of the older films from the era of 1900-1940. The stories are more of a reality based entertainment versus digital based non-reality.
_Duck Dynasty_ like all the other so-called reality shows are not spontaneous/unscripted as they advertise.
And like I have said before. I have lived and still live with peoples like those on_ Duck Dynasty_, my uncle acts just like them, yet I am rather fond of him for all the years we spent hunting and fishing together and yet we have different views on politics and life, we have never fought over them. I prefer to have my relationships free of those burdens of the hair splitters.

As far as the Muslims. I am sorry that people must live under a theocratic hard hand and hope they will be able to usurp their bondage to comply or die. All humans in the world should have the ability to live in a society that let's them live free and unhindered by religious dogmas, or political ones.


----------



## Moonglow

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Michael Richards made racist comments.  He hasn't worked since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He made his comments in 2006.  Since then, he's been in a movie, a short film, and two television series.
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mel Gibson made anti-Semetic Comments. He hasn't worked since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He made no anti-Semitic comments.  He made racist comments in 2010, and since then has worked in four movies.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are lines you don't cross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep making incorrect statements?
Click to expand...


What the poster fails to understand is that Mel, like many actors have their own production companies so they can continue to work after the film companies feel they are too old or not popular enough to use.


----------



## daveman

Stephanie said:


> Another one
> 
> SNIP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thursday, December 19, 2013
> 
> 
> Send A Fax/Contact A&E Networks For Slamming Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The oddest thing is that A&E Networks has been constantly censoring the Ducks for mentioning Christ or God in many of the shows. Yet, cursing and other profanities are not bleeped out to my knowledge on A&E's other shows.
> 
> Send a message to Mel Berning - President of Sales at A&E by faxing him at
> 
> 2122101308
> 
> There are free fax services on the net such as GotFreeFax.Com and they will let you send a hard copy letter directly to A&E offices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twitter A&E at @AETV    Facebook A&E at https://www.facebook.com/AETV
> 
> ALL of it here
> JoeClarke.Net


Not only are they allowing other shows to use profanity, they would bleep words from DD to make it appear the Robertsons were using profanity when they weren't:

'Duck Dynasty' Star Reveals Clash With Producers Over Fake Bleeps, Cutting Jesus (Video) - TheWrap
&#8220;They inserted fake bleeps, like someone had used profanity, but no one had used profanity,&#8221; Robertson, the founder of Duck Commander, said. &#8220;So I asked those guys that produce the show. I said, &#8216;What&#8217;s the point of the fake bleeps?&#8221;

The editing trick, as Robertson explains, was used because the Los Angeles-based editors &#8220;probably thought that there was some profanity going on.&#8221; But there was, in fact, &#8220;zero,&#8221; which led Robertson to pressure producers to stop the practice.

&#8220;If you want that, oh, you can get all of that you want. Just turn the station. There&#8217;s plenty of that. If we&#8217;re not using profanity, why make it look like we&#8217;re using profanity? What is the point?&#8221; Robertson continued. &#8220;Why don&#8217;t you just run it, and say what we say. They&#8217;re like, &#8216;You got a point.&#8217; So they quit doing that.&#8221;​


----------



## daveman

Moonglow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Michael Richards made racist comments.  He hasn't worked since.
> 
> 
> 
> He made his comments in 2006.  Since then, he's been in a movie, a short film, and two television series.
> 
> He made no anti-Semitic comments.  He made racist comments in 2010, and since then has worked in four movies.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are lines you don't cross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep making incorrect statements?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the poster fails to understand is that Mel, like many actors have their own production companies so they can continue to work after the film companies feel they are too old or not popular enough to use.
Click to expand...

Joe fails to understand most things.


----------



## Sunni Man

Moonglow said:


> As far as the Muslims. I am sorry that people must live under a theocratic hard hand and hope they will be able to usurp their bondage to comply or die. All humans in the world should have the ability to live in a society that let's them live free and unhindered by religious dogmas, or political ones.


Just more residual colonial mindset and western hubris.

Most muslims are happy about being a muslim and living in an Islamic country.

But there are always western people like you telling muslims how bad they have it and how sorry you feel for them.    ...


----------



## Avatar4321

daveman said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He made his comments in 2006.  Since then, he's been in a movie, a short film, and two television series.
> 
> He made no anti-Semitic comments.  He made racist comments in 2010, and since then has worked in four movies.
> 
> 
> Why do you keep making incorrect statements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the poster fails to understand is that Mel, like many actors have their own production companies so they can continue to work after the film companies feel they are too old or not popular enough to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joe fails to understand most things.
Click to expand...


He doesn't need to. He needs to wake up and educate himself instead of just reciting talking points that have no basis in reality.


----------



## Againsheila

Sunni Man said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the Muslims. I am sorry that people must live under a theocratic hard hand and hope they will be able to usurp their bondage to comply or die. All humans in the world should have the ability to live in a society that let's them live free and unhindered by religious dogmas, or political ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Just more residual colonial mindset and western hubris.
> 
> Most muslims are happy about being a muslim and living in an Islamic country.
> 
> But there are always western people like you telling muslims how bad they have it and how sorry you feel for them.    ...
Click to expand...


I know Muslims who feel sorry for Muslims living in Islamic countries.  But then again, they aren't fanatical Muslims.


----------



## Moonglow

Sunni Man said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the Muslims. I am sorry that people must live under a theocratic hard hand and hope they will be able to usurp their bondage to comply or die. All humans in the world should have the ability to live in a society that let's them live free and unhindered by religious dogmas, or political ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Just more residual colonial mindset and western hubris.
> 
> Most muslims are happy about being a muslim and living in an Islamic country.
> 
> But there are always western people like you telling muslims how bad they have it and how sorry you feel for them.    ...
Click to expand...


Get rid of the restrictions of a Muslim society due to religious dogma and let us see, until then it is conjecture on your part that people like to be oppressed.


----------



## Moonglow

Sunni Man said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the Muslims. I am sorry that people must live under a theocratic hard hand and hope they will be able to usurp their bondage to comply or die. All humans in the world should have the ability to live in a society that let's them live free and unhindered by religious dogmas, or political ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Just more residual colonial mindset and western hubris.
> 
> Most muslims are happy about being a muslim and living in an Islamic country.
> 
> But there are always western people like you telling muslims how bad they have it and how sorry you feel for them.    ...
Click to expand...


What Muslim country do you live in? Or do you live in a nation that believes in religious freedoms?


----------



## The Irish Ram

The next target.
One of the members of the family featured on TV is the pro gay's next target because of their religious beliefs.   It would be one thing if we are being made to chose politically correctness, or our beliefs.  
But that is not the case.  We are being made to choose political correctness* instead *of our beliefs. Or else. 
While you watch the latest crucifixion of this family, remember that your next, unless........


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> The next target.
> One of the members of the family featured on TV is the pro gay's next target because of their religious beliefs.   It would be one thing if we are being made to chose politically correctness, or our beliefs.
> But that is not the case.  We are being made to choose political correctness* instead *of our beliefs. Or else.
> While you watch the latest crucifixion of this family, remember that your next, unless........


 another pinhead who knows nothing about how broadcasting works!


----------



## Gracie

Another pinhead (daws) that doesn't seem to care about what is going on.


----------



## daveman

Avatar4321 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the poster fails to understand is that Mel, like many actors have their own production companies so they can continue to work after the film companies feel they are too old or not popular enough to use.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe fails to understand most things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't need to. He needs to wake up and educate himself instead of just reciting talking points that have no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

Never gonna happen.  He's terrified to leave the progressive cocoon.


----------



## daws101

Gracie said:


> Another pinhead (daws) that doesn't seem to care about what is going on.


a bigoted asshole shoots off his mouth and loses his job....that he doesn't need any way (he's a millionaire)
the reaction is just paranoia at it's finest...


----------



## Moonglow

That ain't all;



> 'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Also Under Fire for African-American Statements



The 67-year-old "Duck Dynasty" star was suspended by A&E Wednesday for calling homosexuality sinful &#8212; and putting gay people in same category as terrorists. While those quotes quickly went viral, it wasn't his only brow-raising statement in the interview; he also implied that African Americans were happier living under Jim Crow laws.

'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Also Under Fire for African-American Statements | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV


----------



## Gracie

I see the witch hunt is out in full force.


----------



## Staidhup

Its a sad state of affairs when one states his or her opinion and is curcified by the liberal pro gay community and media for a lack of compassion and sympathy for their own perversion.
What is more disturbing, he was only repeating what is written in the old testament, and as a man of God, and a citizen of this country he is within his rights to speak his mind.
As for missing the interview, dam, I would have gone duck hunting rather than sit and listen to that old self righteous hag.


----------



## Moonglow

Gracie said:


> I see the witch hunt is out in full force.



Can't really say until I've read his contract with A&E.


----------



## Sallow

Moonglow said:


> That ain't all;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Also Under Fire for African-American Statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 67-year-old "Duck Dynasty" star was suspended by A&E Wednesday for calling homosexuality sinful  and putting gay people in same category as terrorists. While those quotes quickly went viral, it wasn't his only brow-raising statement in the interview; he also implied that African Americans were happier living under Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Also Under Fire for African-American Statements | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV
Click to expand...


Oh that old coot.


----------



## Moonglow

I wonder if he still considers himself to be poor white trash?


----------



## Sallow

I assume you folks are just as upset about the letting go of Olbermann, Baldwin and Bashir, right?


----------



## Sallow

Moonglow said:


> I wonder if he still considers himself to be poor white trash?



Well you know what they say..

You can take the white of the trash..but..


----------



## Chuckt

daws101 said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another pinhead (daws) that doesn't seem to care about what is going on.
> 
> 
> 
> a bigoted asshole shoots off his mouth and loses his job....that he doesn't need any way (he's a millionaire)
> the reaction is just paranoia at it's finest...
Click to expand...


Who says he doesn't need it?


----------



## Gracie

The feeding frenzy was hOngry after doing in Paula Deen. Now it is Phils turn. Gosh. I wonder who will be next?


----------



## Sallow

Chuckt said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another pinhead (daws) that doesn't seem to care about what is going on.
> 
> 
> 
> a bigoted asshole shoots off his mouth and loses his job....that he doesn't need any way (he's a millionaire)
> the reaction is just paranoia at it's finest...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says he doesn't need it?
Click to expand...


Didn't need what?


----------



## Moonglow

Gracie said:


> The feeding frenzy was hOngry after doing in Paula Deen. Now it is Phils turn. Gosh. I wonder who will be next?




Christian organization cancels 'Duck Dynasty' event because Robertsons have wine deal.

Christian organization cancels 'Duck Dynasty' event because Robertsons have wine deal


----------



## Katzndogz

It won't be so easy this time.  Sponsors are standing with the Robertsons.  Some truck lift company is threatening to pull their advertising if Phil is not reinstated.

It's really gone beyond that.  The Robertsons need to walk away and take their sponsors with them.


----------



## Moonglow

Katzndogz said:


> It won't be so easy this time.  Sponsors are standing with the Robertsons.  Some truck lift company is threatening to pull their advertising if Phil is not reinstated.
> 
> It's really gone beyond that.  The Robertsons need to walk away and take their sponsors with them.



Depends on the contract.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Real Christians are not at all bothered by _Duck _problems at all.

It is an employer employment issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.

If you disagree then don't watch.


----------



## Chuckt

JakeStarkey said:


> Real Christians are not at all bothered by _Duck _problems at all.
> 
> It is an employer employment issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.
> 
> If you disagree then don't watch.



I would say that I am a consumer and therefore have expectations.


----------



## Chuckt

Sallow said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a bigoted asshole shoots off his mouth and loses his job....that he doesn't need any way (he's a millionaire)
> the reaction is just paranoia at it's finest...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says he doesn't need it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't need what?
Click to expand...


The income.


----------



## M14 Shooter

AceRothstein said:


> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?


This guy had every right to say what he said; those that choose to do so have every right to whine and cry about it.
Not sure what the issue is.


----------



## Sallow

Chuckt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says he doesn't need it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't need what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The income.
Click to expand...


If he needed the income he should have engaged his brain before his mouth.

No?

If you say stupid shit, employers can fire you. Happens all the time.


----------



## RoadVirus

> "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."
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended by A&E | Fox News



Translation: His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, *which is run by a bunch of 1st Amendment-hating Liberal Asshats.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Chuckt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Christians are not at all bothered by _Duck _problems at all.
> 
> It is an employer employment issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.
> 
> If you disagree then don't watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that I am a consumer and therefore have expectations.
Click to expand...


As a consumer, I agree with you about one's right to expectations.


----------



## Moonglow

Staidhup said:


> Its a sad state of affairs when one states his or her opinion and is curcified by the liberal pro gay community and media for a lack of compassion and sympathy for their own perversion.
> What is more disturbing, he was only repeating what is written in the old testament, and as a man of God, and a citizen of this country he is within his rights to speak his mind.
> As for missing the interview, dam, I would have gone duck hunting rather than sit and listen to that old self righteous hag.



He insulted more than the gay community with his opinions.


----------



## Sunni Man

Moonglow said:


> Get rid of the restrictions of a Muslim society due to religious dogma and let us see, until then it is conjecture on your part that people like to be oppressed.


Being a muslim and living in an Islamic country doesn't equate to oppression.

True story.........


----------



## Moonglow

RoadVirus said:


> "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."
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended by A&E | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, *which is run by a bunch of 1st Amendment-hating Liberal Asshats.*
Click to expand...


I've never known the Hearst corp  to be liberals.


----------



## Moonglow

Sunni Man said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of the restrictions of a Muslim society due to religious dogma and let us see, until then it is conjecture on your part that people like to be oppressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Being a muslim and living in an Islamic country doesn't equate to oppression.
> 
> True story.........
Click to expand...


ass long as you tow the line.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

This whole Duck Dynasty controversy is nothing more than a conflict manufactured by the media to distract people from the real problems going on out there. The bottom line is Phil Robertson has the freedom to express his personal opinions and A&E has the right to protect their property if they feel he is harming it. It's that simple. Get over it and move on. If people would simply live and let live and be more understanding of opposing view points we wouldn't be bombarded with this constant idiocy.


----------



## Sunni Man

Moonglow said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of the restrictions of a Muslim society due to religious dogma and let us see, until then it is conjecture on your part that people like to be oppressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Being a muslim and living in an Islamic country doesn't equate to oppression.
> 
> True story.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ass long as you tow the line.
Click to expand...

What line would that be??    ....


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

Sallow said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't need what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he needed the income he should have engaged his brain before his mouth.
> 
> No?
> 
> If you say stupid shit, employers can fire you. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...

Robertson didn't say anything wrong.


----------



## RoadVirus

National Socialist said:


> Phil Robertson Suspended From Duck Dynasty Over Anti-Gay Comments | E! Online
> 
> The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."



Piss off nearly 12 million viewers...GOOD IDEA!


----------



## RoadVirus

BDBoop said:


> I think A&E just shot themselves in the foot.



With a bazooka


----------



## daveman

Moonglow said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a sad state of affairs when one states his or her opinion and is curcified by the liberal pro gay community and media for a lack of compassion and sympathy for their own perversion.
> What is more disturbing, he was only repeating what is written in the old testament, and as a man of God, and a citizen of this country he is within his rights to speak his mind.
> As for missing the interview, dam, I would have gone duck hunting rather than sit and listen to that old self righteous hag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He insulted more than the gay community with his opinions.
Click to expand...


There is no right to not be offended.


----------



## hunarcy

daveman said:


> There is no right to not be offended.



True, but since people are behaving that way, I'm going to behave in kind.  Here's a copy of an e-mail I sent to cnn.com.  Hope everyone will send a similar e-mail.

>'Duck Dynasty' Drama: Battle Lines Drawn Over Phil Robertson Suspension | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV

Between Piers Morgan's views on the 2nd Amendment and his hateful comments about the P. Robertson, I am DONE with your network.  Since it has become vogue to wage "war" when speech is heard that people don't approve of, I have decided that I will watch tonight, so I can ensure I've gotten a comprehensive list of your sponsors, and then will be informing them that I won't buy their products as long as they advertise on your network and will send such notifications out once a week until Morgan is no longer a part of your programming.<


----------



## NLT

LGBT are the intolerant bigots.


----------



## Camp

A&E is learning a redneck lesson or two. No matter how tuff you think you are, there is always someone tuffer and some folks you just don't mess with.


----------



## NLT

bodecea said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh whatever.  Did anyone really think they felt otherwise?  The show's still plenty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it's a real shocker. An Evangelical self-described redneck from Louisiana doesn't like gays. Stop the fucking presses.
> 
> Who cares? I'll still watch the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same here...Uncle Si cracks me up.
Click to expand...


So will you post that GLADD is wrong and being intolerant and bigoted?


----------



## The Irish Ram

daws101 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The next target.
> One of the members of the family featured on TV is the pro gay's next target because of their religious beliefs.   It would be one thing if we are being made to chose politically correctness, or our beliefs.
> But that is not the case.  We are being made to choose political correctness* instead *of our beliefs. Or else.
> While you watch the latest crucifixion of this family, remember that your next, unless........
> 
> 
> 
> another pinhead who knows nothing about how broadcasting works!
Click to expand...


This isn't a broadcasting issue.  It has been made into a broadcasting issue.  This is an assault of a belief structure issue, as long as it is a Christian one. Are sponsors running from the Muslim belief concerning gays?  Have we confronted Sammy Sheik on his views?

If Caesar  dictates equal rights under the law, then that is Caesar's position and we are bound to keep the law.  NEVERTHELESS,  in *this* country the man being vilified this week, is a man that lives according to his beliefs, while doing no injury to the law.  

And, there *is* a law that protects *his* right to do so.  His protection under the *fundamental* Laws of this nation, and not the whim of any administration, has been politically correctly undermined by intolerant idealism *and* broadcasting.


----------



## Gracie

Saw this on FB (I can read it, but I was not logged in) and thought I would share:



> I would like to remind everyone, the "Duck Dynasty" store is run and owned by A&E. If you are going to buy Robertson family merchandise, please make sure you buy it from Duck Commander so that A&E does not get a cut.


----------



## NLT

JoeB131 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Michael Richards made racist comments.  He hasn't worked since.
> 
> Mel Gibson made anti-Semetic Comments. He hasn't worked since.
> 
> There are lines you don't cross.
Click to expand...


So why is Alec Baldwin still working?


----------



## Chuckt

Sallow said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't need what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he needed the income he should have engaged his brain before his mouth.
> 
> No?
> 
> If you say stupid shit, employers can fire you. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...


I would have to see the contract but there are also lawyers.


----------



## NLT

Duck Dynasty should release a new line of duck calls ....rainbow colored semen flavored..for the gay guys..and fist shaped pussy flavored for the bull dykes


----------



## JakeStarkey

> His protection under the *fundamental* Laws of this nation, and not the whim of any administration, has been politically correctly undermined by intolerant idealism *and* broadcasting.



Horsecrap.  A&E has every right to disassociate itself DuckPhillip for his commentary.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

I don't agree with that guy Phil who was quoted saying some smack about gays (putting them in league with the likes of terrorists).

On the OTHER hand, I don't HAVE to agree with him.

His statement of his own beliefs causes nobody any actual harm.  We are all free to agree with him or disagree with him.  Ity's not like he published troop movements in time of war or falsely and deliberately yelled "fire" in a crowded theater.  

The liberals who support the action of A&E (i.e., jumping on the guy's shit for having the temerity to state his own views) are giving liberals a black eye.

I have never watched Duck Dynasty.

I see no reason to start now.  But that's only because I think the management of A&E don't deserve my support.


----------



## Gracie

And we have every right to say A&E are idiots.


----------



## Samson

Gracie said:


> And we have every right to say A&E are idiots.





A network that puts on a show called Duck Dynasty????!!!


----------



## Jackson

The star had every right to voice his opinion on Christianity, what the Bible says and that is exactly what he did.  When we cannot have the freedom to voice our love for Christianity, we are in trouble.  Perhaps all of the family should voice their opinions and let's see where A&E stands after they fire all of the cast.

There are gays who profess they are Christians as well and will not stop watching the show unless there is a movement to do so.  A&E should watch where they hang their hat.  I don't even watch the show, but find it was wrong to suspend or fire the star for his words.

The family can go someplace else easier than A&E finding such a hit again.


----------



## Chuckt

JakeStarkey said:


> His protection under the *fundamental* Laws of this nation, and not the whim of any administration, has been politically correctly undermined by intolerant idealism *and* broadcasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horsecrap.  A&E has every right to disassociate itself DuckPhillip for his commentary.
Click to expand...


What ever happened to "The views expressed are not necessarily of those of A&E?

It is unconstitutional to sign away your rights so therefore I feel he has a right to sue A & E.


----------



## daws101

Gracie said:


> I see the witch hunt is out in full force.


which hunt would that be?
the hunt for for a nontroversy  ?


----------



## daws101

Chuckt said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another pinhead (daws) that doesn't seem to care about what is going on.
> 
> 
> 
> a bigoted asshole shoots off his mouth and loses his job....that he doesn't need any way (he's a millionaire)
> the reaction is just paranoia at it's finest...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says he doesn't need it?
Click to expand...

guess you can't read.



en.wikipedia.org

Duck Dynasty is an American reality television series on A&E. It shows the lives of the Robertson family, who became wealthy from their family-operated business, Duck Commander, operated in West Monroe, Louisiana, which makes products for duck hunters, primarily the duck call named Duck Commander. The Robertson men, brothers Phil, Si, and Phil's sons Jase, Willie, and Jep, are known for their long beards. The business began in a family shed, where Phil Robertson spent 25 years making duck calls from Louisiana cedar trees. His son Willie is now the CEO of the company. The family was previously featured on the series Benelli Presents Duck Commander and its spin-off Buck Commander, which still airs on the Outdoor Channel.


----------



## daws101

Chuckt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Christians are not at all bothered by _Duck _problems at all.
> 
> It is an employer employment issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.
> 
> If you disagree then don't watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that I am a consumer and therefore have expectations.
Click to expand...

so you expect him to be a racist homophobe?
aint  Christianity wonderful!


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The next target.
> One of the members of the family featured on TV is the pro gay's next target because of their religious beliefs.   It would be one thing if we are being made to chose politically correctness, or our beliefs.
> But that is not the case.  We are being made to choose political correctness* instead *of our beliefs. Or else.
> While you watch the latest crucifixion of this family, remember that your next, unless........
> 
> 
> 
> another pinhead who knows nothing about how broadcasting works!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't a broadcasting issue.  It has been made into a broadcasting issue.  This is an assault of a belief structure issue, as long as it is a Christian one. Are sponsors running from the Muslim belief concerning gays?  Have we confronted Sammy Sheik on his views?
> 
> If Caesar  dictates equal rights under the law, then that is Caesar's position and we are bound to keep the law.  NEVERTHELESS,  in *this* country the man being vilified this week, is a man that lives according to his beliefs, while doing no injury to the law.
> 
> And, there *is* a law that protects *his* right to do so.  His protection under the *fundamental* Laws of this nation, and not the whim of any administration, has been politically correctly undermined by intolerant idealism *and* broadcasting.
Click to expand...

paranoid ranting at it's finest!


----------



## daws101

Gracie said:


> And we have every right to say A&E are idiots.


----------



## daws101

Jackson said:


> The star had every right to voice his opinion on Christianity, what the Bible says and that is exactly what he did.  When we cannot have the freedom to voice our love for Christianity, we are in trouble.  Perhaps all of the family should voice their opinions and let's see where A&E stands after they fire all of the cast.
> 
> There are gays who profess they are Christians as well and will not stop watching the show unless there is a movement to do so.  A&E should watch where they hang their hat.  I don't even watch the show, but find it was wrong to suspend or fire the star for his words.
> 
> The family can go someplace else easier than A&E finding such a hit again.


I'm sure TBN  would take them if they donated money to tbn.


----------



## daws101

Chuckt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His protection under the *fundamental* Laws of this nation, and not the whim of any administration, has been politically correctly undermined by intolerant idealism *and* broadcasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horsecrap.  A&E has every right to disassociate itself DuckPhillip for his commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever happened to "The views expressed are not necessarily of those of A&E?
> 
> It is unconstitutional to sign away your rights so therefore I feel he has a right to sue A & E.
Click to expand...

wrong again chuckles, when you sign a contract with a network or movie company radio conglomerate you're obligated to adhere to the rules and regulations of that company.
no one is signing away their rights!
nothing unconstitutional about it....
it would be a refreshing change if you asshats actually read and understood your constitutional rights.....


----------



## JakeStarkey

The far right simply do not comprehend the Constitution, its framing, its ratification, and its development in federal law.

Phqking Amzng!


----------



## Gracie

> What ever happened to "The views expressed are not necessarily of those of A&E?



Bingo.

Maybe A@E wanted to pick a fight. Who knows. They plan their DD marathon even during all this hoopla and hope people buy stuff on their website. Which means it's all about money, not what Phil said. Maybe ratings are down and they needed the attention. Who knows.


----------



## PredFan

I learned a couple of things moments ago that set this whole DD crap on it's ear.

First is that the next season has already been shot and will air in a week or two, Phil Robertson of course will still be on it. Secondly, they won't start filming the season after that for another 4-5 months.

Here's what's going to happen. A&E will "suspend" Mr. Robertson for 4-5 months and then claim that he's learned his lesson or some shit and he'll be back in time to film the new season.

Don't doubt me.


----------



## Gracie

Hmmm. I hope Phil does NOT go back unless A&E words it to where THEY eat the rotten crow...not the Robertsons.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

Gracie said:


> Hmmm. I hope Phil does NOT go back unless A&E words it to where THEY eat the rotten crow...not the Robertsons.


Agreed. I bet other networks are burning up the phone lines persuading them to come on board their channels.


----------



## PredFan

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. I hope Phil does NOT go back unless A&E words it to where THEY eat the rotten crow...not the Robertsons.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. I bet other networks are burning up the phone lines persuading them to come on board their channels.
Click to expand...


Glenn Beck is already trying to get them to come to The Blaze.


----------



## Plasmaball

He will issue an apology and that will be that.


----------



## deltex1

Plasmaball said:


> He will issue an apology and that will be that.



The fringe gays gave no concept of "that is that".


----------



## TheOldSchool

PredFan said:


> I learned a couple of things moments ago that set this whole DD crap on it's ear.
> 
> First is that the next season has already been shot and will air in a week or two, Phil Robertson of course will still be on it. Secondly, they won't start filming the season after that for another 4-5 months.
> 
> Here's what's going to happen. A&E will "suspend" Mr. Robertson for 4-5 months and then claim that he's learned his lesson or some shit and he'll be back in time to film the new season.
> 
> Don't doubt me.



I hope they find a new network.  A&E is run by a bunch of pussies.


----------



## AquaAthena

Gracie said:


> Hmmm. I hope Phil does NOT go back unless A&E words it to where THEY eat the rotten crow...not the Robertsons.



Same here, Gracie. Or let DD move to another cable channel...  They are hot and will air all tonight and all day tomorrow...


----------



## Plasmaball

deltex1 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> He will issue an apology and that will be that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fringe gays gave no concept of "that is that".
Click to expand...


Sure they do..but again this is all fake outrage by a side tgat cries alot. It wasnt a week ago that a lefty got in trouble for his mouth..nearly a peep from you hacks.


----------



## bodecea

I smell Publicity Stunt.


----------



## JOSweetHeart

AceRothstein said:


> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?


My issue with them was never about what they had to say concerning former president Bush. What turned me even more off from them was the attitude that they displayed afterwards. To me, they acted as if no one else had the right to put their two cents out there like they did.

God bless you and former president Bush always!!!   

Holly

P.S. To me, their two cents about him only made them look like a bunch of hypocrites when they didn't hesitate to sing "Good Bye Earl" four years earlier, a song about retaliation which was the very thing that made them ashamed that former president Bush is from the state that they are from.


----------



## PredFan

My question is, will people still boycott when the new season airs WITH Phil Robertson?


----------



## rdean

martybegan said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> You condemned Prejean for her views on gay marriage.  You gave Obama, who held the exact same views, a free pass.
> 
> If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't hold those views anymore.  That's the point pinhead.
> 
> Did that have to be explained?  Remember, Reagan thought Social Security was beginning of the end of this country.  Yet he ended up supporting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is we all knew Obama was lying (again) when he said at the time he thought marriag, e was between a man and a woman. He always supported gay marriage, he just couldnt say it at the time because he didnt want to piss off his other base, religious blacks. They wouldn't have voted for someone else, but they may have stayed home, and that would have been a problem.
Click to expand...


You all knew Obama was lying?  Just somehow "knew"?


----------



## MACAULAY

Here's a Liberal who can see the truth.....very rare.


"I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the 'Stonewall Rebellion,' when it cost you something to be so," she said. "And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there &#8230; to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -&#8211; this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breit...nist-PC-Culture


..............................................................

"The only difference between today's Democrats and the totalitarian regimes of pre-WWII Europe is mass murder.  And if you count the Amrican Left's gleeful support of Abortion, the distinction gets even blurrier".
............................................................


----------



## JakeStarkey

PredFan said:


> I learned a couple of things moments ago that set this whole DD crap on it's ear.
> 
> First is that the next season has already been shot and will air in a week or two, Phil Robertson of course will still be on it. Secondly, they won't start filming the season after that for another 4-5 months.
> 
> Here's what's going to happen. A&E will "suspend" Mr. Robertson for 4-5 months and then claim that he's learned his lesson or some shit and he'll be back in time to film the new season.
> 
> Don't doubt me.



See, no constitutional question.  A&E will be able to kiss up to everyone.

Good business practice.


----------



## The Irish Ram

This is a glimpse of how broadcasting works.  Go after an individual to appear progressive.  Then load us up on Duck Dynasty reruns and marathons all weekend to capitalize on the "unfortunate" event.  Hypocrisy and greed aren't that hard to understand.  
Their pretend values are showing.


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> This is a glimpse of how broadcasting works.  Go after an individual to appear progressive.  Then load us up on Duck Dynasty reruns and marathons all weekend to capitalize on the "unfortunate" event.  Hypocrisy and greed aren't really that complicated as far as understanding.  Their pretend values are showing.


false!


----------



## JakeStarkey

thanatos144 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach you  to be a dishonest f***?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos is lost when it comes to understanding factual reasoning and decent behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think anybody cares what take seriously what your lying ass says?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


thanatos proves my point


----------



## Againsheila

vote

Should A&E Have Suspended ?Duck Dynasty?s? Phil Robertson for Anti-Gay Comments - ABC News


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

ROBERTSON FAMILY STATEMENT ON Duck commander website at 7pm

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E&#8217;s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil&#8217;s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: &#8220;Love the Lord your God with all your heart&#8221; and &#8220;Love your neighbor as yourself.&#8221; Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. *We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.* We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.


How very noble of them. They are good people.


----------



## Gracie

PredFan said:


> My question is, will people still boycott when the new season airs WITH Phil Robertson?




They won't if they didn't do their homework.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

ROBERTSON FAMILY STATEMENT ON Duck commander website at 7pm

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&Es decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phils unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and Love your neighbor as yourself. Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. *We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.* We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.


How very noble of them. They are good people.


----------



## Gracie

Woot!!! I knew they would stand firm!

A&E blinked. lol


----------



## SwimExpert

PredFan said:


> I learned a couple of things moments ago that set this whole DD crap on it's ear.
> 
> First is that the next season has already been shot and will air in a week or two, Phil Robertson of course will still be on it. Secondly, they won't start filming the season after that for another 4-5 months.
> 
> Here's what's going to happen. A&E will "suspend" Mr. Robertson for 4-5 months and then claim that he's learned his lesson or some shit and he'll be back in time to film the new season.
> 
> Don't doubt me.



For that matter, it wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing were nothing but a publicity stunt.  I find it hard to believe that the company would create this show to highlight the crazy things this guy says, then "suspend" him for saying something crazy.


----------



## OKTexas

SwimExpert said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I learned a couple of things moments ago that set this whole DD crap on it's ear.
> 
> First is that the next season has already been shot and will air in a week or two, Phil Robertson of course will still be on it. Secondly, they won't start filming the season after that for another 4-5 months.
> 
> Here's what's going to happen. A&E will "suspend" Mr. Robertson for 4-5 months and then claim that he's learned his lesson or some shit and he'll be back in time to film the new season.
> 
> Don't doubt me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, it wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing were nothing but a publicity stunt.  I find it hard to believe that the company would create this show to highlight the crazy things this guy says, then "suspend" him for saying something crazy.
Click to expand...


No they just had a GLAAD fag on the Kelly File, you wouldn't believe they way he tried to contort what Phil said. He twisted and spun everything and with any luck someone will give him a punch in the nose for it, I hate liars.


----------



## Katzndogz

PredFan said:


> I learned a couple of things moments ago that set this whole DD crap on it's ear.
> 
> First is that the next season has already been shot and will air in a week or two, Phil Robertson of course will still be on it. Secondly, they won't start filming the season after that for another 4-5 months.
> 
> Here's what's going to happen. A&E will "suspend" Mr. Robertson for 4-5 months and then claim that he's learned his lesson or some shit and he'll be back in time to film the new season.
> 
> Don't doubt me.



You are wrong.  Only the first few episodes of the next season have been shot.  I have heard only two episodes are in the can.  Phil would be in those but not others.

Second.  The Robertson family has already issued a statement that they will not continue without the patriarch.  They are in negotiations to end the series.  

Either the network has to back away from their pro gay position or the series will end at least on that network.


----------



## Amelia

Gracie said:


> Woot!!! I knew they would stand firm!
> 
> A&E blinked. lol




??


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Plasmaball said:


> He will issue an apology and that will be that.



Who is He?  Phil?  If so, he doesn't owe anyone an apology!!


----------



## Gracie

They blinked first, Amelia. Guess they thought dumping Phil, the rest of the guys would be ok with it. Wrong.


----------



## Amelia

Is there news?  Did A&E unsuspend him?


----------



## Gracie

They are in negotiations because the guys are refusing to continue on without Phil. That is all I know so far, hon.


----------



## Amelia

Thanks!


----------



## tinydancer

rdean said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't hold those views anymore.  That's the point pinhead.
> 
> Did that have to be explained?  Remember, Reagan thought Social Security was beginning of the end of this country.  Yet he ended up supporting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is we all knew Obama was lying (again) when he said at the time he thought marriag, e was between a man and a woman. He always supported gay marriage, he just couldnt say it at the time because he didnt want to piss off his other base, religious blacks. They wouldn't have voted for someone else, but they may have stayed home, and that would have been a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You all knew Obama was lying?  Just somehow "knew"?
Click to expand...




Because in 1996 he was for same sex marriage. He's just a lying son of a bitch on everything. 

* Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it  and before he was for it again.

In 1996, as he ran for Illinois state Senate, Chicagos Outlines gay newspaper asked candidates to fill out a questionnaire. Tracy Baim, the co-founder and publisher of Outlines, dug up a copy of the questionnaire in 2009, cataloging the president-elects shift.

He had written on the 1996 questionnaire, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."*

President Barack Obama's shifting stance on gay marriage | PolitiFact


----------



## OKTexas

Amelia said:


> Is there news?  Did A&E unsuspend him?



Not yet.


----------



## Gracie

> UPDATE: 12:30 p.m. -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Jindal and Palin in defending Robertson, writing on his Facebook page Thursday:
> 
> If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job. In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him--but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.



Bobby Jindal Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star Who Compared Homosexuality To Bestiality


----------



## Gracie

> Quote:
> UPDATE: 12:30 p.m. -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Jindal and Palin in defending Robertson, writing on his Facebook page Thursday:
> 
> If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job. In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him--but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.
> Bobby Jindal Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star Who Compared Homosexuality To Bestiality



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=421844


----------



## tinydancer

Steve_McGarrett said:


> ROBERTSON FAMILY STATEMENT ON Duck commander website at 7pm
> 
> We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&Es decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phils unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and Love your neighbor as yourself. Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. *We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.* We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.
> 
> 
> How very noble of them. They are good people.



Thanks for the update.


----------



## asaratis

Steve_McGarrett said:


> ROBERTSON FAMILY STATEMENT ON Duck commander website at 7pm
> 
> We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&Es decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phils unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and Love your neighbor as yourself. Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. *We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.* We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.
> 
> 
> How very noble of them. They are good people.


A&E will lose in this self-inflicted, self righteous appeasement of 2% of the population.  A stupid move...A *really* stupid move!


----------



## Wyld Kard

Plasmaball said:


> He will issue an apology and that will be that.



So he should issue an apology for something he wasn't wrong for and that will be that?

That's fucking stupid.


----------



## BDBoop

Gracie said:


> Saw this on FB (I can read it, but I was not logged in) and thought I would share:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to remind everyone, the "Duck Dynasty" store is run and owned by A&E. If you are going to buy Robertson family merchandise, please make sure you buy it from Duck Commander so that A&E does not get a cut.
Click to expand...


Excellent point.


----------



## asaratis

daws101 said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The star had every right to voice his opinion on Christianity, what the Bible says and that is exactly what he did.  When we cannot have the freedom to voice our love for Christianity, we are in trouble.  Perhaps all of the family should voice their opinions and let's see where A&E stands after they fire all of the cast.
> 
> There are gays who profess they are Christians as well and will not stop watching the show unless there is a movement to do so.  A&E should watch where they hang their hat.  I don't even watch the show, but find it was wrong to suspend or fire the star for his words.
> 
> The family can go someplace else easier than A&E finding such a hit again.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure TBN  would take them if they donated money to tbn.
Click to expand...


That's not the way it works.  They have something the public wants to watch.  They GET PAID for it!  DD is not an infomercial!  They have no trouble selling duck calls without the TV show.  Sane networks will be outbidding each other for the right to broadcast Duck Dynasty.


----------



## Avatar4321

Plasmaball said:


> He will issue an apology and that will be that.



You don't know Phil well. And he has nothing to apologize for.


----------



## tinydancer

Gracie said:


> UPDATE: 12:30 p.m. -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Jindal and Palin in defending Robertson, writing on his Facebook page Thursday:
> 
> If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job. In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him--but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobby Jindal Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star Who Compared Homosexuality To Bestiality
Click to expand...


Free speech is obviously only accepted by liberals when it's speech they can agree with.

Like Bashir saying in a preplanned statement that Palin should be whipped, have her mouth defecated in and her eyes and mouth pissed in.

Apparently to libs that's just fine and dandy.


----------



## BDBoop

tinydancer said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UPDATE: 12:30 p.m. -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Jindal and Palin in defending Robertson, writing on his Facebook page Thursday:
> 
> If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job. In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him--but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobby Jindal Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star Who Compared Homosexuality To Bestiality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free speech is obviously only accepted by liberals when it's speech they can agree with.
> 
> Like Bashir saying in a preplanned statement that Palin should be whipped, have her mouth defecated in and her eyes and mouth pissed in.
> 
> Apparently to libs that's just fine and dandy.
Click to expand...


Since I have been backing Phil through this whole thread, you might want to rethink the broad brush you've chosen.


----------



## HenryBHough

A&E is privately owned so has every right to censor as they see fit.

Just as Americans have every right to decline to watch but, in addition, have the right to boycott sponsors of A&E programming.  Flaw in that is they'd have to watch A&E to know who's advertising.


----------



## The T

Plasmaball said:


> He will issue an apology and that will be that.


An apology for what dumbass? Christian? Human? Exercising his 1st Amendment rights and getting fired for it? YOU are real tolerant of all views...just that which YOU agree with...right?

 Go away. YOU have nothing.


----------



## BDBoop

Againsheila said:


> vote
> 
> Should A&E Have Suspended ?Duck Dynasty?s? Phil Robertson for Anti-Gay Comments - ABC News



8576 say A&E effed up, vs 1352 votes in support.


----------



## Gracie

From what I read in one of the many threads about this, sponsors are pulling out.
Might have a list of said sponsors on the FB page.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Spoonman said:


> remember when people were entitled to their own opinions in America?  also kind of strange that the acceptable attitudes are, I don't like your opinion or perspctive on things so I am going to boycott and call for others to boycott your products or services. then in the next breath,  you don't like my opinions or perspectives but i am still going to force you to supply your products or services to me.  WTF is up with that?



Liberals have been hard at work for decades to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Say anything negative about a person of color regardless the context, you're a racist.

Likewise about a woman, you're a sexist.

Same with someone gay, you're a homophobe.

Liberals make these accusations with the intent of ending the debate by silencing people. No one wants to be accused of being racist, so they simply shut up. Just look for instance at how liberals scream racism when any of us criticize Obama. It doesn't matter that half the nation disagrees with his policies, it's only because he's black that we fight back according to liberals.


----------



## HenryBHough

Gracie said:


> From what I read in one of the many threads about this, sponsors are pulling out.
> Might have a list of said sponsors on the FB page.



What's not clear is whether any such sponsors are jumping ship because of what was said or because of A&E's Kremlinesque censorship.

If it's just the one show then it's the leftist machine in action.

If it's the whole network losing income then it's freedom-loving Americans.


----------



## blackhawk

The family released their first official statement on this the most important part in my view is this.

We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.  We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty.   Again, thank you for your continued support of our family."

To me that sounds like either Phil comes back or their finished with A&E if that is the case I have no doubt there are plenty of networks ready to give Duck Dynasty a new home.


----------



## Spoonman

Steve_McGarrett said:


> ROBERTSON FAMILY STATEMENT ON Duck commander website at 7pm
> 
> We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&Es decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phils unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and Love your neighbor as yourself. Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. *We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.* We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.
> 
> 
> How very noble of them. They are good people.



probably one of A&E's  more highly rated shows.  they will shoot themselves in the foot  with their political correctness. I know i'll avoid the station.  as far as the sponsors who choose to boycott because they claim his views differ from theirs, I say fine, you're opinions differ from mine so i'll gladly avoid your products. you have plenty of competitors more than willing to take my money.


----------



## asaratis

HenryBHough said:


> A&E is privately owned so has every right to censor as they see fit.
> 
> Just as Americans have every right to decline to watch but, in addition, have the right to boycott sponsors of A&E programming.  Flaw in that is they'd have to watch A&E to know who's advertising.



Phil's comments were not broadcast on A&E.  He answered a question from a GQ interviewer...and he has been paraphrased into appearing bigoted when he is definitely NOT!

A&E fucked up...big time!  A&E promotes other shows that are far more socially INCORRECT than what Phil said.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

I will say this, A&E is in a no win situation here.
They don't suspend or fire the guy, they face a backlash.
They do suspend or fire the guy, they face a backlash.

They've made a business decision hoping to limit the damage as much as possible. It could end up being the best position of a very bad situation. Or, it could be the least damage would have been to keep him on.


----------



## healthmyths

"Phil Robertson's remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations,"
 president Chad Griffin said in a statement. 
*"We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful. *
 We also know that Americans of faith follow the Golden Rule -- treating others with the respect and dignity you'd wish to be treated with. 
'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Question?  Is it possible someone can "choose" to be gay?  And if one can choose to be gay, why is that bad?

I mean what in today's society does being gay versus not gay have anything to do with it?

It sounds like "choosing" to be gay is wrong!  WHY?

Another question for  Chad Hunter Griffin (born July 16, 1973) is an American political strategist best known for his work advocating for LGBT rights in the United States...
What statement did Duck man Phil make that was inconsistent with "scientific findings of leading medical organizations" ?
NOT ONE statement by PHIL make that was inconsistent with "scientific findings of leading medical organizations"!

Go through as I did and tell me where Phil said anything that attacked the CHOICE of being gay..

"It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus," Robertson says in the January issue of the men's magazine. "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."

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."
'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

WHERE in the above did Phil make ANY statement that was "inconsistent with scientific findings of leading medical organizations"???

More importantly though "what are the findings by these leading medical organizations?...Is there a "I gotta be me gene"???
NO says :A team of international researchers has completed a study that suggests* we will probably never find a gay gene.' *Sexual orientation is not about genetics, say the researchers, it's about epigenetics. This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself."

Scientists claim that homosexuality is not genetic ? but it arises in the womb

So if it is epigentical, DNA influenced BY EXTERNAL factors!!!  That is LEARNED behavior NOT NATURE!  NOT GENETIC!!
So again the myths about I've gotta be me gene???  Appears just that!

LEARNED behavior i.e. society acceptance of GAY behavior.  
And so Phil's point is well we've accepted gay behavior.. then why not bestiality.. why not accept that?  Pedophilia?  Why not accept that?  Necrophilia.. accept that?
The point Phil and people like me make at what point do we say this is unacceptable behavior?
Most Americans have no problem with GAYS... It's the GAYs that constantly have to feed that inferiority complex that they are NOT accepted.
WELL GAYS here's your chance!!!  Laugh at PHIL!  Tell him you love him for him as a human that has HIS OWN opinion!
BUT why are gays attacking him?  Looking like spoiled immature grade school kids... crying about Big BAD PHIL!
GROW A SET GAY GUYS!


----------



## Gracie

Wayne Dupree Show 12/19 - Spreecast


----------



## BDBoop

Gracie said:


> From what I read in one of the many threads about this, sponsors are pulling out.
> Might have a list of said sponsors on the FB page.



A&E SO could have used this to their advantage. All they had to do is say they disagree, but they would fight to the death for his right to say it.


----------



## HenryBHough

BDBoop said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I read in one of the many threads about this, sponsors are pulling out.
> Might have a list of said sponsors on the FB page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A&E SO could have used this to their advantage. All they had to do is say they disagree, but they would fight to the death for his right to say it.
Click to expand...


Yet, knee-jerk liberals that their leaders are, they burned that bridge before they came to it.


----------



## Gracie

Well, so much for black folks taking offense. One is hosting a show right now IN SUPPORT of Phil. See link above.


----------



## Spoonman

BDBoop said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I read in one of the many threads about this, sponsors are pulling out.
> Might have a list of said sponsors on the FB page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A&E SO could have used this to their advantage. All they had to do is say they disagree, but they would fight to the death for his right to say it.
Click to expand...


very good point.  and I think that would have been the proper and civil thing to do.  I think if we took that kind of approach more often we would have more open discourse and greater respect for each other.   everything todays is approached from such and aggressive, negative and demeaning perspective.


----------



## Katzndogz

If someone on a television show said they supported same sex marriage and got suspended because the statement did not reflect the valuee of the network, what would happen?


----------



## tinydancer

BDBoop said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bobby Jindal Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star Who Compared Homosexuality To Bestiality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech is obviously only accepted by liberals when it's speech they can agree with.
> 
> Like Bashir saying in a preplanned statement that Palin should be whipped, have her mouth defecated in and her eyes and mouth pissed in.
> 
> Apparently to libs that's just fine and dandy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I have been backing Phil through this whole thread, you might want to rethink the broad brush you've chosen.
Click to expand...


I don't consider you a liberal. I categorize carefully. 

To me you are truly an independent. You follow your own path. A rare breed indeed.



ETA: Many people claim to be independent when they are just wishy washy. You are never wishy washy.


----------



## blackhawk

I'm growing a bread in support of Phil.


----------



## Spoonman

Katzndogz said:


> If someone on a television show said they supported same sex marriage and got suspended because the statement did not reflect the valuee of the network, what would happen?



you know the fur would be flying over that.


----------



## BDBoop

tinydancer said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech is obviously only accepted by liberals when it's speech they can agree with.
> 
> Like Bashir saying in a preplanned statement that Palin should be whipped, have her mouth defecated in and her eyes and mouth pissed in.
> 
> Apparently to libs that's just fine and dandy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I have been backing Phil through this whole thread, you might want to rethink the broad brush you've chosen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't consider you a liberal. I categorize carefully.
> 
> To me you are truly an independent. You follow your own path. A rare breed indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: Many people claim to be independent when they are just wishy washy. You are never wishy washy.
Click to expand...


See, I never took those tests or anything. I think you may be right - but I'd have to actually try to figure it out.  Thanks, TD!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

As the apparent only member of the LGBT community big n bad enough to be open about it (holds up thumb and forefinger threatening to squish the head of anyone who mouths off about it heh) I have to say sexual orientation is in fact a choice. Who you're attracted to is the result of conditioning. No gene short-circuits your free will turning you into an automoton. Who you pursue a relationship with, is the result of you making a choice. Being straight doesn't not prevent you from getting drunk one night and orally copulating another guy. Though impaired, you made a choice. 

But sexuality isn't a binary state. Just because you say you're straight, doesn't mean given the right circumstance or opportunity you wouldn't have a gay liason. Or in the case of porn, do gay porn for a ton of money (most gay porn actors are actually straight and only 'gay for pay'.) Consequently, the act of having sex doesn't define your sexuality. And the term sexual orientatio is itself a figure of speech. Until coined, people had sex with whom ever they wanted to. But we just love categorizing things, and since some can't accept the fact that they have it within themselves to have gay sex too, gays must be just gay, and straights must be just straight. 

Sorry, no. 1's and 6's on the Kinsey scale will become 2's or 5's in prison 'making due.' Orientation can change instantly because of enviroment and opportunity. But it's always a choice people make. 

The question itself is phrased badly. Because some are attracted to blondes, some to their own sex, it's the result of conditioning. But there's no gene that takes away free will. 

Gays and straights alike make a choice to pursue those relationships. But they can both make different choices at will. Believing they can't is simply wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

asaratis said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is privately owned so has every right to censor as they see fit.
> 
> Just as Americans have every right to decline to watch but, in addition, have the right to boycott sponsors of A&E programming.  Flaw in that is they'd have to watch A&E to know who's advertising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Phil's comments were not broadcast on A&E.*  He answered a question from a GQ interviewer...and he has been paraphrased into appearing bigoted when he is definitely NOT!
> 
> A&E fucked up...big time!  A&E promotes other shows that are far more socially INCORRECT than what Phil said.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. 

He represents the network regardless the venue of his speech. 

And the network made a decision it considered to be in its best interest.


----------



## BDBoop

Delta4Embassy said:


> As the apparent only member of the LGBT community big n bad enough to be open about it (holds up thumb and forefinger threatening to squish the head of anyone who mouths off about it heh) I have to say sexual orientation is in fact a choice. Who you're attracted to is the result of conditioning. No gene short-circuits your free will turning you into an automoton. Who you pursue a relationship with, is the result of you making a choice. Being straight doesn't not prevent you from getting drunk one night and orally copulating another guy. Though impaired, you made a choice.
> 
> But sexuality isn't a binary state. Just because you say you're straight, doesn't mean given the right circumstance or opportunity you wouldn't have a gay liason. Or in the case of porn, do gay porn for a ton of money (most gay porn actors are actually straight and only 'gay for pay'.) Consequently, the act of having sex doesn't define your sexuality. And the term sexual orientatio is itself a figure of speech. Until coined, people had sex with whom ever they wanted to. But we just love categorizing things, and since some can't accept the fact that they have it within themselves to have gay sex too, gays must be just gay, and straights must be just straight.
> 
> Sorry, no. 1's and 6's on the Kinsey scale will become 2's or 5's in prison 'making due.' Orientation can change instantly because of enviroment and opportunity. But it's always a choice people make.
> 
> The question itself is phrased badly. Because some are attracted to blondes, some to their own sex, it's the result of conditioning. But there's no gene that takes away free will.
> 
> Gays and straights alike make a choice to pursue those relationships. But they can both make different choices at will. Believing they can't is simply wrong.



That's the biggest load of hooie I have heard in a very long time.

Yes, sexuality has a certain degree of fluidity. Everybody is somewhere on the spectrum. You're almost certainly bi. I am straight. My sister is a lesbian. She's not going to be exploring her sexuality any time soon, nor am I.

And I doubt that the bulk of this board will, either. But most will pat you on the back for giving them this ammo you just provided.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

I am bisexual. 

Just because you say something, doesn't mean your choice and actions may say something else down the road. Just because I say I'm bisexual doesn't mean if I have a gay lover I can't say I'm gay. For all intents and purposes, I would be. Just the same as if having a straight lover I might say I'm straight. The terms don't mean anyting because they're not absolute or binding. I can change how I describe myself at will. Just like you and your sister could. If you got really drunk and wanted to see what all the fuss was about one night at a party, you might choose to make-out with another girl. Same thing with your sister. 

Curiousity causes people to do many things they didn't think they ever would be it sex, drugs, etc.


----------



## tinydancer

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is privately owned so has every right to censor as they see fit.
> 
> Just as Americans have every right to decline to watch but, in addition, have the right to boycott sponsors of A&E programming.  Flaw in that is they'd have to watch A&E to know who's advertising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Phil's comments were not broadcast on A&E.*  He answered a question from a GQ interviewer...and he has been paraphrased into appearing bigoted when he is definitely NOT!
> 
> A&E fucked up...big time!  A&E promotes other shows that are far more socially INCORRECT than what Phil said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> He represents the network regardless the venue of his speech.
> 
> And the network made a decision it considered to be in its best interest.
Click to expand...


Oh bite me. Robertson doesn't represent the network. A&E made a business decision that was foolhardy and rash.

Like BD Boop suggested all they had to do was come out and clearly state that Robertson was speaking only on behalf of his own beliefs.

I mean what next? The Pope is against abortion and same sex marriages so are networks not going to carry his Christmas Day message from the Vatican?

Are we really going to try to push PC that far? It wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Gracie

I am straight. In no way, EVER, would "curiosity" send me to the arms of a woman. Just...ewww. And I'm pretty damn sure the majority of men here that are straight would say the same EWWWW and never had an ounce of "curiosity" about another man's anus.
Curiosity? Um Ok. Do you wonder what poop tastes like and act on it?


----------



## BDBoop

Delta4Embassy said:


> I am bisexual.
> 
> Just because you say something, doesn't mean your choice and actions may say something else down the road. Just because I say I'm bisexual doesn't mean if I have a gay lover I can't say I'm gay. For all intents and purposes, I would be. Just the same as if having a straight lover I might say I'm straight. The terms don't mean anyting because they're not absolute or binding. I can change how I describe myself at will. Just like you and your sister could. If you got really drunk and wanted to see what all the fuss was about one night at a party, you might choose to make-out with another girl. Same thing with your sister.
> 
> Curiousity causes people to do many things they didn't think they ever would be it sex, drugs, etc.



That does not make one anything other than bi-curious.

I did exactly what you referenced.

My sister has a son.

She is a lesbian, I am straight and since we're both in our mid-50's, we won't be playing any reindeer games, thanks.

How do you explain this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe58_vd_5g4]Brain scan results - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]

Shouldn't he have a different reading, based on your beliefs?


----------



## Avatar4321

rdean said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't hold those views anymore.  That's the point pinhead.
> 
> Did that have to be explained?  Remember, Reagan thought Social Security was beginning of the end of this country.  Yet he ended up supporting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is we all knew Obama was lying (again) when he said at the time he thought marriag, e was between a man and a woman. He always supported gay marriage, he just couldnt say it at the time because he didnt want to piss off his other base, religious blacks. They wouldn't have voted for someone else, but they may have stayed home, and that would have been a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You all knew Obama was lying?  Just somehow "knew"?
Click to expand...


well he was opening his mouth.


----------



## Avatar4321

SwimExpert said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I learned a couple of things moments ago that set this whole DD crap on it's ear.
> 
> First is that the next season has already been shot and will air in a week or two, Phil Robertson of course will still be on it. Secondly, they won't start filming the season after that for another 4-5 months.
> 
> Here's what's going to happen. A&E will "suspend" Mr. Robertson for 4-5 months and then claim that he's learned his lesson or some shit and he'll be back in time to film the new season.
> 
> Don't doubt me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, it wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing were nothing but a publicity stunt.  I find it hard to believe that the company would create this show to highlight the crazy things this guy says, then "suspend" him for saying something crazy.
Click to expand...


How is quoting scripture in a question about his beliefs crazy?


----------



## Avatar4321

blackhawk said:


> I'm growing a bread in support of Phil.



I tend to bake bread myself.

Beards are pretty cool though my wife loves mine.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Avatar4321 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm growing a bread in support of Phil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to bake bread myself.
> 
> Beards are pretty cool though my wife loves mine.
Click to expand...


I grew a bread once. I left a loaf of bread in my house, and went away for a few months.

Boy, had it grown!


----------



## UnAmericanYOU

No, I have wondered if all of this isn't a big play for publicity for the show. Look at that guy, who would be surprised he thinks this way? I had heard of this reality tv show vaguely but it's all I'm hearing about this week. Reruns are still playing on A&E but I think I'll pass.


----------



## American_Jihad

*'Duck Dynasty' family releases statement*​
Dec. 19, 2013, 10:06 PM EST
By Tim Kenneally
TheWrap

...

In the statement, posted on the Duck Commander website, the family says that it "cannot imagine" going forward with the show if Phil isn't aboard, and that it's "in discussions" with A&E to determine what his suspension means for the future of the show. 

In the statement, the family asserted that Phil "would never incite or encourage hate" and that they were "disappointed" in the suspension. 

Also on TheWrap: 'Duck Dynasty' Fallout: GLAAD Reeling From Biggest Backlash in Years, Says Rep 

They also said that Phil's expression of his faith is his "constitutionally protected right." 

Read the full statement below. 

"We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E's decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil's unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of 'Duck Dynasty.' Again, thank you for your continued support of our family." 

'Duck Dynasty' clan 'cannot imagine' doing show without Phil Robertson - MSN TV News



*Petition launched to reinstate 'Duck Dynasty' star*

Dec. 19, 2013, 2:30 PM EST
Entertainment Tonight. 
...
Petition launched to reinstate 'Duck Dynasty' star - MSN TV News


----------



## The Irish Ram

Chuckt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Christians are not at all bothered by _Duck _problems at all.
> 
> It is an employer employment issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.
> 
> If you disagree then don't watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that I am a consumer and therefore have expectations.
Click to expand...


Jake I think it may go deeper than that.
I remember when this quote described how people felt about the freedom this country had to offer.  It has ceased to apply.  How sad to have lost it:

&#8216;I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,&#8217;

And it is another attack on Christianity.  Something Christians have come to expect.


----------



## tinydancer

UnAmericanYOU said:


> No, I have wondered if all of this isn't a big play for publicity for the show. Look at that guy, who would be surprised he thinks this way? I had heard of this reality tv show vaguely but it's all I'm hearing about this week. Reruns are still playing on A&E but I think I'll pass.



The man's a Christian. Who follows the Word. Of course he thinks that way. 

And as far as the show goes they don't need publicity  

* The show has broken several ratings records on both A&E and cable television as a whole; the fourth season premiere drew 11.8 million viewers, the most-watched nonfiction cable telecast in history*

Duck Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Moonglow

> a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word



So they are stoning sinners and blasphemers in Louisiana?


----------



## BDBoop

George Takei weighs in;



> Many fans asked for my thoughts on the "Duck Dynasty" controversy. They pressed and pressed, but I refused to quack.
> 
> But I can't duck this issue forever. I don't really care feather someone on a reality show said something about gays that didn't fit the bill. He's entitled to his opinion, even if it's for the birds. But the network also is worried about flocking with its base, so if it feels it should drake him over the coals for making his fowl comments, so be it.
> 
> So that's migrate opinion.


----------



## Moonglow

If some toothless, haggard, nappy headed dumbshit can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, and that goes for all those part time Christians out there, then Hell awaits you also.


----------



## Moonglow

tinydancer said:


> UnAmericanYOU said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have wondered if all of this isn't a big play for publicity for the show. Look at that guy, who would be surprised he thinks this way? I had heard of this reality tv show vaguely but it's all I'm hearing about this week. Reruns are still playing on A&E but I think I'll pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man's a Christian. Who follows the Word. Of course he thinks that way.
> 
> And as far as the show goes they don't need publicity
> 
> * The show has broken several ratings records on both A&E and cable television as a whole; the fourth season premiere drew 11.8 million viewers, the most-watched nonfiction cable telecast in history*
> 
> Duck Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


People love seeing white trash country fucks acting like idiots.


----------



## Avatar4321

Moonglow said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UnAmericanYOU said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have wondered if all of this isn't a big play for publicity for the show. Look at that guy, who would be surprised he thinks this way? I had heard of this reality tv show vaguely but it's all I'm hearing about this week. Reruns are still playing on A&E but I think I'll pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man's a Christian. Who follows the Word. Of course he thinks that way.
> 
> And as far as the show goes they don't need publicity
> 
> * The show has broken several ratings records on both A&E and cable television as a whole; the fourth season premiere drew 11.8 million viewers, the most-watched nonfiction cable telecast in history*
> 
> Duck Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People love seeing country fucks acting like idiots.
Click to expand...


Helps take their mind off our country being screwed over by people who criticize those country folks.


----------



## Gracie

Trashy. For feeding their family, doing what they want on their own land, serving their country, calling their wives Miss, following their spiritual belief. 

You, dude, are the trash. Not them.


----------



## tinydancer

Moonglow said:


> If some toothless, haggard, nappy headed dumbshit can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, and that goes for all those part time Christians out there, then Hell awaits you also.



I've not seen where he is picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to follow. 

And if one does follow the Word, you have to be dedicated to it as a whole and as the Word of Jehovah. It appears from what I've read that Phil and other family members attempt to do that.


----------



## Moonglow

Avatar4321 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man's a Christian. Who follows the Word. Of course he thinks that way.
> 
> And as far as the show goes they don't need publicity
> 
> * The show has broken several ratings records on both A&E and cable television as a whole; the fourth season premiere drew 11.8 million viewers, the most-watched nonfiction cable telecast in history*
> 
> Duck Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People love seeing country fucks acting like idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Helps take their mind off our country being screwed over by people who criticize those country folks.
Click to expand...


Screwed over, hmm. I doubt those rich white trash country folk have let it bother them to much. Since they love everyone equally.


----------



## Moonglow

tinydancer said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> If some toothless, haggard, nappy headed dumbshit can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, and that goes for all those part time Christians out there, then Hell awaits you also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen where he is picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to follow.
> 
> And if one does follow the Word, you have to be dedicated to it as a whole and as the Word of Jehovah. It appears from what I've read that Phil and other family members attempt to do that.
Click to expand...


You either follow everything in the Bible or you pick and choose. I do not see them living as Christ commanded.


----------



## Againsheila

blackhawk said:


> I'm growing a bread in support of Phil.



Must be good yeast.


----------



## rdean

Republicans see a hairy hillbilly who kills ducks as "creative" and a "Leader".  No wonder they hate gays.


----------



## Plasmaball

tinydancer said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> If some toothless, haggard, nappy headed dumbshit can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, and that goes for all those part time Christians out there, then Hell awaits you also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen where he is picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to follow.
> 
> And if one does follow the Word, you have to be dedicated to it as a whole and as the Word of Jehovah. It appears from what I've read that Phil and other family members attempt to do that.
Click to expand...


Tastes like bullshit...


----------



## Politico

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Michael Richards made racist comments.  He hasn't worked since.
> 
> Mel Gibson made anti-Semetic Comments. He hasn't worked since.
> 
> There are lines you don't cross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mel Gibson's made 4 or 5 movies since he made those marks
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


And Michael Richards currently has a television show. But people round here don't tend to actually fact check.


----------



## American_Jihad

Moonglow said:


> a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they are stoning sinners and blasphemers in Louisiana?
Click to expand...


Like me, you may not have known that we are currently living under United Nations anti-blasphemy laws sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Its called HCR Resolution 16/18 and it was adopted by the United Nations on March 24, 2011, with Hillary Clintons blessings. Why didnt we hear about this? Because the lame stream media didnt report on it. Its official and it all happened without our knowledge.


----------



## tinydancer

rdean said:


> Republicans see a hairy hillbilly who kills ducks as "creative" and a "Leader".  No wonder they hate gays.



Very successful family business based on their love and appreciation of hunting.


----------



## Moonglow

American_Jihad said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they are stoning sinners and blasphemers in Louisiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like me, you may not have known that we are currently living under United Nations anti-blasphemy laws sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Its called HCR Resolution 16/18 and it was adopted by the United Nations on March 24, 2011, with Hillary Clintons blessings. Why didnt we hear about this? Because the lame stream media didnt report on it. Its official and it all happened without our knowledge.
Click to expand...


Good luck enforcing it.


----------



## Moonglow

16/18 on &#8220;Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.&#8221;


----------



## tinydancer

Moonglow said:


> a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they are stoning sinners and blasphemers in Louisiana?
Click to expand...


Practically speaking there wouldn't be enough stones.


----------



## Gracie

Petition from John Q. Public which you can sign if you so desire.

#IStandWithPhil Petition

(over 100,000 signatures so far).


----------



## American_Jihad

Moonglow said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they are stoning sinners and blasphemers in Louisiana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like me, you may not have known that we are currently living under United Nations anti-blasphemy laws sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Its called HCR Resolution 16/18 and it was adopted by the United Nations on March 24, 2011, *with Hillary Clintons blessings*. Why didnt we hear about this? Because the lame stream media didnt report on it. Its official and it all happened without our knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck enforcing it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Moonglow

tinydancer said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they are stoning sinners and blasphemers in Louisiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Practically speaking there wouldn't be enough stones.
Click to expand...


They should move up here at the foot of the Ozark mountains, we grow a lot of rocks here.


----------



## BDBoop

Gracie said:


> Petition from John Q. Public which you can sign if you so desire.
> 
> #IStandWithPhil Petition
> 
> (over 100,000 signatures so far).



Now at 100,414.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Sunni Man said:


> I haven't gone duck hunting for the last 20 years.
> 
> But I am thinking about buying a DD duck call just to show my support for the family.   .....



if you do it is important to go through duck commander this is the families business

Duck Calls | Duck Commander

*not*

duck dynasty 

which partnered with a&e


----------



## jon_berzerk

martybegan said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, lets shift the debate over to why a broadcast company feels the need to drop someone in a heartbeat due to a personal statement, that in no way threatens anyone, does not call for harm to be done to anyone, and at the end of the day does no real harm to anyone.
> 
> We have come to a point where one side of the political debate is given all sorts of leeway, and when they cross the line it takes a massive outswelling of outrage to even get them a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, someone on the "wrong" side of the debate is an instant target for the "butthurt group of the week's" media campaign to silence them via economic assault.
> 
> We have come to the point where if you offend the wrong 1% of the population you are ostracised without due process, and usually without being able to defend yourself.
> 
> Considering something "offensive" when it really only offends a small vocal minority may not be censorship, but it sure as hell isnt justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well then, lets shift the debate over to why a broadcast company feels the need to drop someone in a heartbeat due to a personal statement,*
> 
> they worried that they might be destroyed like chic-fil-a was
> 
> after making similar personal comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chic-fil-A was destroyed?
Click to expand...


sarcasm

--LOL


----------



## theHawk

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here we have our example of ignorance, stupidity, and hate from the right.
> 
> Again, the issue has nothing to do with free speech, in fact our right to speak freely has never been more secure.
Click to expand...


It does have to do with free speech.  Why would these leftist queer-enabler groups go after someone for speaking his own mind in an interview?  It's not as though he said this stuff on the TV show, so why is he being fired for it?  A&E can do whatever it wants, but this is really about the militant left doing another political lynching of anyone who isn't in line with their views.  Leftist groups are nothing but a bunch of intolerant bullies who try to ruin peoples' lives if they aren't on board with the leftist/queer agenda.


----------



## jon_berzerk

theHawk said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here we have our example of ignorance, stupidity, and hate from the right.
> 
> Again, the issue has nothing to do with free speech, in fact our right to speak freely has never been more secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does have to do with free speech.  Why would these leftist queer-enabler groups go after someone for speaking his own mind in an interview?  It's not as though he said this stuff on the TV show, so why is he being fired for it?  A&E can do whatever it wants, but this is really about the militant left doing another political lynching of anyone who isn't in line with their views.  Leftist groups are nothing but a bunch of intolerant bullies who try to ruin peoples' lives if they aren't on board with the leftist/queer agenda.
Click to expand...


had more to do with a set up perhaps 

one that by now has backfired


----------



## jon_berzerk

theHawk said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no more free speach anymore.  I mean really, all this phoney outrage because someone has their own personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that isn't in line with queer-enablers?
> 
> What's the plan, get everyone fired because they don't believe fags are "A-OK"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here we have our example of ignorance, stupidity, and hate from the right.
> 
> Again, the issue has nothing to do with free speech, in fact our right to speak freely has never been more secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does have to do with free speech.  Why would these leftist queer-enabler groups go after someone for speaking his own mind in an interview?  It's not as though he said this stuff on the TV show, so why is he being fired for it?  A&E can do whatever it wants, but this is really about the militant left doing another political lynching of anyone who isn't in line with their views.  Leftist groups are nothing but a bunch of intolerant bullies who try to ruin peoples' lives if they aren't on board with the leftist/queer agenda.
Click to expand...


had more to do with a set up perhaps 

one that by now has backfired


----------



## Sallow

PredFan said:


> I learned a couple of things moments ago that set this whole DD crap on it's ear.
> 
> First is that the next season has already been shot and will air in a week or two, Phil Robertson of course will still be on it. Secondly, they won't start filming the season after that for another 4-5 months.
> 
> Here's what's going to happen. A&E will "suspend" Mr. Robertson for 4-5 months and then claim that he's learned his lesson or some shit and he'll be back in time to film the new season.
> 
> Don't doubt me.



I doubt:



> "We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E's decision.  We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word.  While some of Phils unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible," reads a statement posted on the family's Duck Commander website. "Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Phil would never incite or encourage hate. We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.  We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty.  Again, thank you for your continued support of our family."
> 'Duck Dynasty' Family: 'We Cannot Imagine the Show' Without Phil Robertson



Tough one to call, but I'm betting A&E will cave and the show will fizzle on it's own weight (As these sorts of things usually do). It's probably got a season or two at most.

Then FOX will hire Phil or the tea party will run him.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> Republicans see a hairy hillbilly who kills ducks as "creative" and a "Leader".  No wonder they hate gays.



They've made far more money being creative that you ever will as an Engineer of Womyn's Studies.


----------



## daveman

bdboop said:


> gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> petition from john q. Public which you can sign if you so desire.
> 
> #istandwithphil petition
> 
> (over 100,000 signatures so far).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now at 100,414.
Click to expand...


102,409.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Over 1 Million Support Boycotting A&E Following &#8216;Duck Dynasty&#8217; Star&#8217;s Suspension

Over 1 Million Support Boycotting A&E Following ?Duck Dynasty? Star?s Suspension « CBS Houston


----------



## BDBoop

Pogo said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Histrionics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> I'm wondering if that's not why I had an hysteria-ectomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn! You coulda had _*her*_trionics.
Click to expand...


I said that to my mom. "It's not like I had my hysteria removed!"


----------



## Papageorgio

rdean said:


> Republicans see a hairy hillbilly who kills ducks as "creative" and a "Leader".  No wonder they hate gays.



The only one that talks about hating people, seem to be the Democrats trying to fix blame on Republicans. Seems that Democrats protest to much.


----------



## Papageorgio

Politico said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Michael Richards made racist comments.  He hasn't worked since.
> 
> Mel Gibson made anti-Semetic Comments. He hasn't worked since.
> 
> There are lines you don't cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mel Gibson's made 4 or 5 movies since he made those marks
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Michael Richards currently has a television show. But people round here don't tend to actually fact check.
Click to expand...


So does Don Imus.


----------



## Papageorgio

Moonglow said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UnAmericanYOU said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have wondered if all of this isn't a big play for publicity for the show. Look at that guy, who would be surprised he thinks this way? I had heard of this reality tv show vaguely but it's all I'm hearing about this week. Reruns are still playing on A&E but I think I'll pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man's a Christian. Who follows the Word. Of course he thinks that way.
> 
> And as far as the show goes they don't need publicity
> 
> * The show has broken several ratings records on both A&E and cable television as a whole; the fourth season premiere drew 11.8 million viewers, the most-watched nonfiction cable telecast in history*
> 
> Duck Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People love seeing white trash country fucks acting like idiots.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and those "white trash country fucks" have made more money than you ever thought of and probably 1%ers and are pretty business savvy.


----------



## BDBoop

So, IMO A&E should have known who and what they signed up.

More at the link.

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson appears to verbally attack gay people in newly emerged video - NY Daily News

I've heard the first few minutes, but I doubt that I can stick it out for the long haul. I have a tough time with his mindset.


----------



## BDBoop

Here is the actual GQ article, for anybody that hasn't seen it yet.

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour


----------



## Esmeralda

Spoonman said:


> *remember when people were entitled to their own opinions in America? * also kind of strange that the acceptable attitudes are, I don't like your opinion or perspctive on things so I am going to boycott and call for others to boycott your products or services. then in the next breath,  you don't like my opinions or perspectives but i am still going to force you to supply your products or services to me.  WTF is up with that?



You are remembering something that never existed.   People having totally free speech?  Never existed unless you lived out in the wilderness somewhere all by yourself. Free speech never existed. Yes, white Christian male heterosexuals were pretty much able to say what they wanted, but not blacks, not women, not homosexuals, not anyone who disagreed with the mainstream ideology of the former America.  People lost their jobs for what they said. They went to prison (remember the McCarthy era?).  They were beaten, lynched and murdered.  Crosses were burned on their front lawns.  Women were put in mental institutions.  Total free speech has never existed for most people in America.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Esmeralda said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *remember when people were entitled to their own opinions in America? * also kind of strange that the acceptable attitudes are, I don't like your opinion or perspctive on things so I am going to boycott and call for others to boycott your products or services. then in the next breath,  you don't like my opinions or perspectives but i am still going to force you to supply your products or services to me.  WTF is up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are remembering something that never existed.   People having totally free speech?  Never existed unless you lived out in the wilderness somewhere all by yourself. Free speech never existed. Yes, white Christian male heterosexuals were pretty much able to say what they wanted, but not blacks, not women, not homosexuals, not anyone who disagreed with the mainstream ideology of the former America.  People lost their jobs for what they said. They went to prison (remember the McCarthy era?).  They were beaten, lynched and murdered.  Crosses were burned on their front lawns.  Women were put in mental institutions.  Total free speech has never existed for most people in America.
Click to expand...


Living in the past there Esmeralda. There are over 20 million slaves in the world right now, what are you doing about that?


----------



## mal

Esmeralda said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *remember when people were entitled to their own opinions in America? * also kind of strange that the acceptable attitudes are, I don't like your opinion or perspctive on things so I am going to boycott and call for others to boycott your products or services. then in the next breath,  you don't like my opinions or perspectives but i am still going to force you to supply your products or services to me.  WTF is up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are remembering something that never existed.   People having totally free speech?  Never existed unless you lived out in the wilderness somewhere all by yourself. Free speech never existed. Yes, white Christian male heterosexuals were pretty much able to say what they wanted, but not blacks, not women, not homosexuals, not anyone who disagreed with the mainstream ideology of the former America.  People lost their jobs for what they said. They went to prison (remember the McCarthy era?).  They were beaten, lynched and murdered.  Crosses were burned on their front lawns.  Women were put in mental institutions.  Total free speech has never existed for most people in America.
Click to expand...


It's Payback time for White Heterosexual Christians!



peace...


----------



## asaratis

...of this saga will be the incessant string of commentary from pseudo intellectual nitpickers attempting to make names for themselves.  They will twist every questionable phase the man has ever uttered in a quest to discredit him.  I write their antics off to pure jealousy.


----------



## dannyboys

I told you all so. The DD family is going to tear up the A&E contract and tell the 'boys who pee sitting down' where to stick the duck calls.
The 'duck call' will become a symbol of free speech.
The DD family will all be muti multi millionaires in a couple of years. 
The DD family will accept an offer from FOX.
There will be more duck calls hanging in vehicle back windows then there are ducks in the country.
This time the 'boyz' who pee sitting down bite when they should have swallowed. 
Thanks to Bobo many people have reached the end of their patience with 'all things LIB'.
Bobo can thanks A&E for losing his party another few million votes next year.
A&E WILL issue a statement claiming 'it was all a misunderstanding and of course Phil will always be welcome on his own show. Sorry. Once the DD family makes a decision it's made permanently.
I'd love to be in the conference room at A&E listening to the 'boys who pee sitting down' try to wiggle their cute little bums out of the mess they created.


----------



## Esmeralda

mal said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *remember when people were entitled to their own opinions in America? * also kind of strange that the acceptable attitudes are, I don't like your opinion or perspctive on things so I am going to boycott and call for others to boycott your products or services. then in the next breath,  you don't like my opinions or perspectives but i am still going to force you to supply your products or services to me.  WTF is up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are remembering something that never existed.   People having totally free speech?  Never existed unless you lived out in the wilderness somewhere all by yourself. Free speech never existed. Yes, white Christian male heterosexuals were pretty much able to say what they wanted, but not blacks, not women, not homosexuals, not anyone who disagreed with the mainstream ideology of the former America.  People lost their jobs for what they said. They went to prison (remember the McCarthy era?).  They were beaten, lynched and murdered.  Crosses were burned on their front lawns.  Women were put in mental institutions.  Total free speech has never existed for most people in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Payback time for White Heterosexual Christians!
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Yep, the white, male, heterosexual Christians, no matter how stupid were the only ones who had free speech.  Too stupid to even understand the point of this thread. It's payback time for everyone else, LOL. That's the point of the thread. Try to keep up.


----------



## candycorn

dannyboys said:


> I told you all so. The DD family is going to tear up the A&E contract and tell the 'boys who pee sitting down' where to stick the duck calls.
> The 'duck call' will become a symbol of free speech.
> The DD family will all be muti multi millionaires in a couple of years.
> The DD family will accept an offer from FOX.
> There will be more duck calls hanging in vehicle back windows then there are ducks in the country.
> This time the 'boyz' who pee sitting down bite when they should have swallowed.
> Thanks to Bobo many people have reached the end of their patience with 'all things LIB'.
> Bobo can thanks A&E for losing his party another few million votes next year.
> A&E WILL issue a statement claiming 'it was all a misunderstanding and of course Phil will always be welcome on his own show. Sorry. Once the DD family makes a decision it's made permanently.
> I'd love to be in the conference room at A&E listening to the 'boys who pee sitting down' try to wiggle their cute little bums out of the mess they created.


----------



## candycorn

AquaAthena said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV
> 
> 
> Reading this, I feel this the same kind of drama that some liberal media is known for. Wasn't there outcry from some liberals when Miss California was also asked her honest opinion? In my opinion, GLAAD is becoming the obnoxious drama queen that everyone wants to ignore, and it is hurting the image of homosexuals as a group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Duck Dynasty Men before their beards:
> 
> Si:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Phil:* ( high-school  and college football player and almost went pro: )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Willie:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Brothers in high-school:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Brothers, small: aww*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All growed up....
Click to expand...


Somehow they look less creepy with the beards.  Hard to pull off that look.


----------



## JoeB131

Politico said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mel Gibson's made 4 or 5 movies since he made those marks
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Michael Richards currently has a television show. But people round here don't tend to actually fact check.
Click to expand...




Well, we don't really pay attention to shows no one is actually watching. 

Geezus, it's on "TV Land".  That doesn't even count as a network, does it?

So he's a minor character on a TV series starring a washed up fat chick on a basic cable network.  Yeah, man, his career has really taking off. He's totally rebounded from those racist comments. 


Now, let's move on to Mel Gibson. How's his career going since he outed himself as a Jew-hating drunk? 

Well, he didn't work for four years.  And the movies he made when he did come back all turned into commercial bombs.  

Sorry, man, you don't come back professionally from being a bigot.  

Now, hey, the DD guys might survive this. The whole appeal of this show is "Let's laugh at the Rednecks", so why are we surprised when they act like.... rednecks.


----------



## candycorn

BDBoop said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5VmM4pRhM
> 
> So, IMO A&E should have known who and what they signed up.
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson appears to verbally attack gay people in newly emerged video - NY Daily News
> 
> I've heard the first few minutes, but I doubt that I can stick it out for the long haul. I have a tough time with his mindset.



I was more offended at how boring he was...didn't stick around long enough to get to the homophobic part if there was any there.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mel Gibson's made 4 or 5 movies since he made those marks
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Michael Richards currently has a television show. But people round here don't tend to actually fact check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we don't really pay attention to shows no one is actually watching.
> 
> Geezus, it's on "TV Land".  That doesn't even count as a network, does it?
> 
> So he's a minor character on a TV series starring a washed up fat chick on a basic cable network.  Yeah, man, his career has really taking off. He's totally rebounded from those racist comments.
> 
> 
> Now, let's move on to Mel Gibson. How's his career going since he outed himself as a Jew-hating drunk?
> 
> Well, he didn't work for four years.  And the movies he made when he did come back all turned into commercial bombs.
> 
> Sorry, man, you don't come back professionally from being a bigot.
> 
> Now, hey, the DD guys might survive this. The whole appeal of this show is "Let's laugh at the Rednecks", so why are we surprised when they act like.... rednecks.
Click to expand...


Why don't you just admit to being wrong and shut the hell up ?

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

candycorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5VmM4pRhM
> 
> So, IMO A&E should have known who and what they signed up.
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson appears to verbally attack gay people in newly emerged video - NY Daily News
> 
> I've heard the first few minutes, but I doubt that I can stick it out for the long haul. I have a tough time with his mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was more offended at how boring he was...didn't stick around long enough to get to the homophobic part if there was any there.
Click to expand...


I will translate this liberal post for you all. It says I don't need proof to hate I'm a liberal

tapatalk post


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Fans Go Online to 'Bring Back Phil Robertson' | CNS News


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fans Go Online to 'Bring Back Phil Robertson' | CNS News



Maybe if Duckboy could get 70 million people to vote for him


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fans Go Online to 'Bring Back Phil Robertson' | CNS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if Duckboy could get 70 million people to vote for him
Click to expand...


obama didn't have 70 million votes nor did he have as many 2012 as he did in 2008


----------



## Avatar4321

rdean said:


> Republicans see a hairy hillbilly who kills ducks as "creative" and a "Leader".  No wonder they hate gays.



No one hates gays. Repeating your lie isn't going to make it true.

And you complete disrespect to a good and honorable man just shows us how much you hate everything that is good and decent in this world.


----------



## Avatar4321

Plasmaball said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> If some toothless, haggard, nappy headed dumbshit can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, and that goes for all those part time Christians out there, then Hell awaits you also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen where he is picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to follow.
> 
> And if one does follow the Word, you have to be dedicated to it as a whole and as the Word of Jehovah. It appears from what I've read that Phil and other family members attempt to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tastes like bullshit...
Click to expand...


You know what Bull crap tastes like?


----------



## Avatar4321

candycorn said:


> Somehow they look less creepy with the beards.  Hard to pull off that look.



Not tough at all when they dont look creepy at all.


----------



## Spoonman

AquaAthena said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. I hope Phil does NOT go back unless A&E words it to where THEY eat the rotten crow...not the Robertsons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, Gracie. Or let DD move to another cable channel...  They are hot and will air all tonight and all day tomorrow...
Click to expand...


and they just got a lot hotter


----------



## Spoonman

Avatar4321 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans see a hairy hillbilly who kills ducks as "creative" and a "Leader".  No wonder they hate gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one hates gays. Repeating your lie isn't going to make it true.
> 
> And you complete disrespect to a good and honorable man just shows us how much you hate everything that is good and decent in this world.
Click to expand...


leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays.  it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion


----------



## candycorn

thanatos144 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5VmM4pRhM
> 
> So, IMO A&E should have known who and what they signed up.
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson appears to verbally attack gay people in newly emerged video - NY Daily News
> 
> I've heard the first few minutes, but I doubt that I can stick it out for the long haul. I have a tough time with his mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was more offended at how boring he was...didn't stick around long enough to get to the homophobic part if there was any there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will translate this liberal post for you all. It says I don't need proof to hate I'm a liberal
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I have more than 1 thing to do today and couldn't wait for Jethro to finish whatever he started; sorry.


----------



## candycorn

rdean said:


> Republicans see a hairy hillbilly who kills ducks as "creative" and a "Leader".  No wonder they hate gays.



The "thought leaders" of the GOP seem to be whomever makes the most outlandish comments....  Not looking good for their Party.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans see a hairy hillbilly who kills ducks as "creative" and a "Leader".  No wonder they hate gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one hates gays. Repeating your lie isn't going to make it true.
> 
> And you complete disrespect to a good and honorable man just shows us how much you hate everything that is good and decent in this world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays.  it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion
Click to expand...


I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?

Free speech?  The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily.  Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *remember when people were entitled to their own opinions in America? * also kind of strange that the acceptable attitudes are, I don't like your opinion or perspctive on things so I am going to boycott and call for others to boycott your products or services. then in the next breath,  you don't like my opinions or perspectives but i am still going to force you to supply your products or services to me.  WTF is up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are remembering something that never existed.   People having totally free speech?  Never existed unless you lived out in the wilderness somewhere all by yourself. Free speech never existed. Yes, white Christian male heterosexuals were pretty much able to say what they wanted, but not blacks, not women, not homosexuals, not anyone who disagreed with the mainstream ideology of the former America.  People lost their jobs for what they said. They went to prison (remember the McCarthy era?).  They were beaten, lynched and murdered.  Crosses were burned on their front lawns.  Women were put in mental institutions.  Total free speech has never existed for most people in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Living in the past there Esmeralda. There are over 20 million slaves in the world right now, what are you doing about that?
Click to expand...


*Here*??


----------



## blackhawk

Avatar4321 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm growing a bread in support of Phil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to bake bread myself.
> 
> Beards are pretty cool though my wife loves mine.
Click to expand...


Note to self don't drink and post at the same time.


----------



## thanatos144

candycorn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was more offended at how boring he was...didn't stick around long enough to get to the homophobic part if there was any there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will translate this liberal post for you all. It says I don't need proof to hate I'm a liberal
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have more than 1 thing to do today and couldn't wait for Jethro to finish whatever he started; sorry.
Click to expand...


More of that tolerance from you 

tapatalk post


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one hates gays. Repeating your lie isn't going to make it true.
> 
> And you complete disrespect to a good and honorable man just shows us how much you hate everything that is good and decent in this world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays.  it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?
> 
> Free speech?  The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily.  Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.
Click to expand...


yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right. 

The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.


----------



## thanatos144

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one hates gays. Repeating your lie isn't going to make it true.
> 
> And you complete disrespect to a good and honorable man just shows us how much you hate everything that is good and decent in this world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays.  it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?
> 
> Free speech?  The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily.  Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.
Click to expand...


Nobody is talking about civil actions all we are talking about is that  A&E made a stupid decision that will most likely cost them in the end 

tapatalk post


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays.  it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?
> 
> Free speech?  The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily.  Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.
> 
> The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.
Click to expand...


A&E is a business, is it not?  And they make business decisions, do they not?  That means they do so based on their bottom line.

As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling _illusions_.  The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract.  Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.

Again, this is basically Paula Deen again.  So what?


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?
> 
> Free speech?  The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily.  Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.
> 
> The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A&E is a business, is it not?  And they make business decisions, do they not?  That means based on their bottom line,
> 
> As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling _illusions_.  The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract.  Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.
> 
> Again, this is basically Paula Deen again.  So what?
Click to expand...


What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago. 

What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup. 

Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.
> 
> The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is a business, is it not?  And they make business decisions, do they not?  That means based on their bottom line,
> 
> As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling _illusions_.  The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract.  Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.
> 
> Again, this is basically Paula Deen again.  So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.
> 
> What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.
> 
> Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.
Click to expand...


No I don't think that's accurate.  Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time.  Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit.  Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.

Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere.  But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract.  This is how the business _works_.

A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
>> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, *Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general*, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<

Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed.  See paragraph 13 on page 15.  See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.

Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.

This is *TV*, folks.  Not reality.


----------



## Katzndogz

PredFan was absolutely right in the OP.   Fox did some digging and far from having only two completed episodes as A&E had first claimed, all but ONE episode was complete.   Phil is in all of them but one.  

Just gotta correct the record.  I thought that it was only two episodes and was wrong.


----------



## thanatos144

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is a business, is it not?  And they make business decisions, do they not?  That means based on their bottom line,
> 
> As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling _illusions_.  The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract.  Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.
> 
> Again, this is basically Paula Deen again.  So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.
> 
> What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.
> 
> Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't think that's accurate.  Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time.  Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit.  Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.
> 
> Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere.  But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract.  This is how the business _works_.
> 
> A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
> >> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, *Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general*, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<
> 
> Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed.  See paragraph 13 on page 15.  See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.
> 
> Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.
> 
> This is *TV*, folks.  Not reality.
Click to expand...


Holy s*** your corporatist 

tapatalk post


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is a business, is it not?  And they make business decisions, do they not?  That means based on their bottom line,
> 
> As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling _illusions_.  The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract.  Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.
> 
> Again, this is basically Paula Deen again.  So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.
> 
> What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.
> 
> Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't think that's accurate.  Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time.  Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit.  Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.
> 
> Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere.  But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract.  This is how the business _works_.
> 
> A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
> >> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, *Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general*, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<
> 
> Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed.  See paragraph 13 on page 15.  See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.
> 
> Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.
> 
> This is *TV*, folks.  Not reality.
Click to expand...


and again, they have the LEGAL ability to do that, what I am calling them out on is thier actions to proceed with non-renewal/suspending/firing whatever. 

There wasnt enough time for real anger to develop over the comments, GLAAD went all butthurt and BOOM he was "suspended."  The angst of a few people who cant stand the fact that some people disapprove of thier lifestlye should not be enough to force a company to kowtow to thier wishes.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one hates gays. Repeating your lie isn't going to make it true.
> 
> And you complete disrespect to a good and honorable man just shows us how much you hate everything that is good and decent in this world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays.  it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?
> 
> Free speech?  The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily.  Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.
Click to expand...


MSNBC, FN and A&E have the right to hire an fire as they wish and then viewers have a right to boycott stations if they wish. Bashir's language about Palin was disgusting, the duck guy, his is just an opinion, no hate, just opinion, Martha Stewart was over nothing, however all three were fired. I wouldn't fire any of them but that is me. 

You have a right to an opinion and employers have a right to hire and fire.

I don't really liked or watched any of the shows, however free publicity...can't beat that.


----------



## Papageorgio

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.
> 
> What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.
> 
> Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think that's accurate.  Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time.  Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit.  Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.
> 
> Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere.  But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract.  This is how the business _works_.
> 
> A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
> >> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, *Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general*, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<
> 
> Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed.  See paragraph 13 on page 15.  See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.
> 
> Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.
> 
> This is *TV*, folks.  Not reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and again, they have the LEGAL ability to do that, what I am calling them out on is thier actions to proceed with non-renewal/suspending/firing whatever.
> 
> There wasnt enough time for real anger to develop over the comments, GLAAD went all butthurt and BOOM he was "suspended."  The angst of a few people who cant stand the fact that some people disapprove of thier lifestlye should not be enough to force a company to kowtow to thier wishes.
Click to expand...


It shouldn't but it does and that is why celebs need to be smarter about what they say and who they say it to. You know damn well the guy interviewing them asked the questions to sell a magazines and anyone with a brain knew the response would garner controversy. The duck guy doesn't hate, he has an opinion, people that disagree with his opinion are showing hate.


----------



## Pogo

thanatos144 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.
> 
> What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.
> 
> Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think that's accurate.  Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time.  Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit.  Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.
> 
> Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere.  But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract.  This is how the business _works_.
> 
> A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
> >> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, *Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general*, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<
> 
> Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed.  See paragraph 13 on page 15.  See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.
> 
> Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.
> 
> This is *TV*, folks.  Not reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy s*** your corporatist
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Uh yeah.  That's what everybody who's seen my posting calls me -- "corporatist"


----------



## Againsheila

candycorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5VmM4pRhM
> 
> So, IMO A&E should have known who and what they signed up.
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson appears to verbally attack gay people in newly emerged video - NY Daily News
> 
> I've heard the first few minutes, but I doubt that I can stick it out for the long haul. I have a tough time with his mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was more offended at how boring he was...didn't stick around long enough to get to the homophobic part if there was any there.
Click to expand...


I couldn't get past (It's 2010 AD).  Still, I support his right to give whatever speech he wants.


----------



## Againsheila

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.
> 
> The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is a business, is it not?  And they make business decisions, do they not?  That means based on their bottom line,
> 
> As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling _illusions_.  The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract.  Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.
> 
> Again, this is basically Paula Deen again.  So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.
> 
> What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.
> 
> Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.
Click to expand...


That's what gets me.  This is a 67 year old guy from backwoods Louisiana.  What do you think he thinks?  If you don't want to know, don't ask.


----------



## asaratis

Againsheila said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is a business, is it not?  And they make business decisions, do they not?  That means based on their bottom line,
> 
> As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling _illusions_.  The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract.  Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.
> 
> Again, this is basically Paula Deen again.  So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.
> 
> What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.
> 
> Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what gets me.  This is a 67 year old guy from backwoods Louisiana.  What do you think he thinks?  If you don't want to know, don't ask.
Click to expand...

Oh shut up.  Phil was the first string quarterback at college with Terry Bradshaw at second string.  Had Phil not liked duck hunting more than football, Terry Bradshaw might never have become famous.  Just because someone lives outside the city and talks with a drawl doesn't mean they're any dumber than you about religion.


----------



## Againsheila

asaratis said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.
> 
> What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.
> 
> Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what gets me.  This is a 67 year old guy from backwoods Louisiana.  What do you think he thinks?  If you don't want to know, don't ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh shut up.  Phil was the first string quarterback at college with Terry Bradshaw at second string.  Had Phil not liked duck hunting more than football, Terry Bradshaw might never have become famous.  Just because someone lives outside the city and talks with a drawl doesn't mean they're any dumber than you about religion.
Click to expand...



Never said he was dumb.  Is it "backwoods" that you associate with the word dumb, or "Louisiana?"


----------



## martybegan

Papageorgio said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think that's accurate.  Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time.  Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit.  Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.
> 
> Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere.  But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract.  This is how the business _works_.
> 
> A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
> >> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, *Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general*, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<
> 
> Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed.  See paragraph 13 on page 15.  See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.
> 
> Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.
> 
> This is *TV*, folks.  Not reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and again, they have the LEGAL ability to do that, what I am calling them out on is thier actions to proceed with non-renewal/suspending/firing whatever.
> 
> There wasnt enough time for real anger to develop over the comments, GLAAD went all butthurt and BOOM he was "suspended."  The angst of a few people who cant stand the fact that some people disapprove of thier lifestlye should not be enough to force a company to kowtow to thier wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shouldn't but it does and that is why celebs need to be smarter about what they say and who they say it to. You know damn well the guy interviewing them asked the questions to sell a magazines and anyone with a brain knew the response would garner controversy. The duck guy doesn't hate, he has an opinion, people that disagree with his opinion are showing hate.
Click to expand...


Protected classes can't show hate, don't you know that????

/sarcasm.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

He said something in a tasteless manner his boss didnt like. He got fired. Case closed. This is a free country but actions and words are not immune to a reaction. 

I'm anti gay but if I had an employee that made VERY PUBLIC statements like this I would fire him and be within my right to do so. 

If you don't like it write A&E or stop watching it. And for the record I've never seen this show so I have no opinion either way.


----------



## martybegan

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays.  it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?
> 
> Free speech?  The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily.  Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MSNBC, FN and A&E have the right to hire an fire as they wish and then viewers have a right to boycott stations if they wish. Bashir's language about Palin was disgusting, the duck guy, his is just an opinion, no hate, just opinion, Martha Stewart was over nothing, however all three were fired. I wouldn't fire any of them but that is me.
> 
> You have a right to an opinion and *employers have a right to hire and fire.*
> 
> I don't really liked or watched any of the shows, however free publicity...can't beat that.
Click to expand...


Unless you are part of a protected class, then the employer has to go through hoops to get you canned without being sued for discrimination.


----------



## Againsheila

Grampa Murked U said:


> He said something in a tasteless manner his boss didnt like. He got fired. Case closed. This is a free country but actions and words are not immune to a reaction.
> 
> I'm anti gay but if I had an employee that made VERY PUBLIC statements like this I would fire him and be within my right to do so.
> 
> If you don't like it write A&E or stop watching it. And for the record I've never seen this show so I have no opinion either way.




You should watch it, the bee episode was hilarious.


----------



## martybegan

Grampa Murked U said:


> He said something in a tasteless manner his boss didnt like. He got fired. Case closed. This is a free country but actions and words are not immune to a reaction.
> 
> I'm anti gay but if I had an employee that made VERY PUBLIC statements like this I would fire him and be within my right to do so.
> 
> If you don't like it write A&E or stop watching it. And for the record I've never seen this show so I have no opinion either way.



See what happens if you try to fire a black guy who goes on the air and says he hates white people.


----------



## daws101

candycorn said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Duck Dynasty Men before their beards:
> 
> Si:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Phil:* ( high-school  and college football player and almost went pro: )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Willie:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Brothers in high-school:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Brothers, small: aww*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All growed up....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somehow they look less creepy with the beards.  Hard to pull off that look.
Click to expand...

seems to me that the Robertson's and A&E got together and created the redneck persona to grab a certain audience demographic...
if you watch that network with any regularity you'll notice DD is one of a long list of red necked themed shows...


----------



## Avatar4321

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?
> 
> Free speech?  The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily.  Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.
> 
> The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A&E is a business, is it not?  And they make business decisions, do they not?  That means they do so based on their bottom line.
> 
> As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling _illusions_.  The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract.  Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.
> 
> Again, this is basically Paula Deen again.  So what?
Click to expand...


I havent seen Phil's contract so I can't say if there is a morals clause, but you seriously think he violated a morals clause for speaking up for morality?


----------



## Againsheila

martybegan said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said something in a tasteless manner his boss didnt like. He got fired. Case closed. This is a free country but actions and words are not immune to a reaction.
> 
> I'm anti gay but if I had an employee that made VERY PUBLIC statements like this I would fire him and be within my right to do so.
> 
> If you don't like it write A&E or stop watching it. And for the record I've never seen this show so I have no opinion either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what happens if you try to fire a black guy who goes on the air and says he hates white people.
Click to expand...


Didn't Oprah get a nobel peace prize for that?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.
> 
> The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is a business, is it not?  And they make business decisions, do they not?  That means they do so based on their bottom line.
> 
> As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling _illusions_.  The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract.  Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.
> 
> Again, this is basically Paula Deen again.  So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I havent seen Phil's contract so I can't say if there is a morals clause, but you seriously think he violated a morals clause for speaking up for morality?
Click to expand...

Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity

Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts | FCC.gov


----------



## daveman




----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere.  But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract.  This is how the business _works_.


Duck Calls | Duck Commander

This is the product they were selling long before the show came along -- and they were quite successful with it.

They don't need the show.  It's just for fun.


----------



## daws101

daveman said:


>


 that pic proves bill maher right ....again

[ame=http://youtu.be/fys3MsKMpms]Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sallow

martybegan said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?
> 
> Free speech?  The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily.  Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSNBC, FN and A&E have the right to hire an fire as they wish and then viewers have a right to boycott stations if they wish. Bashir's language about Palin was disgusting, the duck guy, his is just an opinion, no hate, just opinion, Martha Stewart was over nothing, however all three were fired. I wouldn't fire any of them but that is me.
> 
> You have a right to an opinion and *employers have a right to hire and fire.*
> 
> I don't really liked or watched any of the shows, however free publicity...can't beat that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you are part of a protected class, then the employer has to go through hoops to get you canned without being sued for discrimination.
Click to expand...


What the heck are you talking about?

Companies have no trouble whatsoever firing anyone at any time.

Ask anyone that's been unemployed recently.


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere.  But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract.  This is how the business _works_.
> 
> 
> 
> Duck Calls | Duck Commander
> 
> This is the product they were selling long before the show came along -- and they were quite successful with it.
> 
> They don't need the show.  It's just for fun.
Click to expand...


Fun might be over.

Time to hit the pond and start blasting ducks again.


----------



## Pogo

Avatar4321 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.
> 
> The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A&E is a business, is it not?  And they make business decisions, do they not?  That means they do so based on their bottom line.
> 
> As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling _illusions_.  The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract.  Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.
> 
> Again, this is basically Paula Deen again.  So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I havent seen Phil's contract so I can't say if there is a morals clause, but you seriously think he violated a morals clause for speaking up for morality?
Click to expand...



Is it really that hard to read a few posts back -- indeed one already posted _*between *_yours and the one quoted?



Pogo said:


> A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
> >> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, *Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general*, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<
> 
> Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed.  See paragraph 13 on page 15.  See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.
> 
> This is *TV*, folks.  Not reality.



The TV channel is creating *illusions*.  That's what TV deals in.  It's common standard practice to control that illusion in a contract.  Which let's remember is voluntarily entered into by both parties.


----------



## daveman

daws101 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that pic proves bill maher right ....again
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/fys3MsKMpms]Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?

Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche

Bill Maher: Master of misogyny


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere.  But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract.  This is how the business _works_.
> 
> 
> 
> Duck Calls | Duck Commander
> 
> This is the product they were selling long before the show came along -- and they were quite successful with it.
> 
> They don't need the show.  It's just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fun might be over.
> 
> Time to hit the pond and start blasting ducks again.
Click to expand...

It's not like they're going to starve to death.


----------



## daveman

Yet more proof of the left's selective outrage:

FLASHBACK: Sarah Silverman Says Anal Sex is Disgusting, GLAAD Silent | Truth Revolt

There is an outright double standard that exists when it comes to commenting about homosexuality. If you are a conservative who disagrees with homosexuality you are called a homophobe. If you are a Christian who disagrees with homosexuality, you are even worse. But if you are a liberal, a Hollywood celebrity, or a left-wing comic, you get a blank check to say whatever you want. 

If the recent "Duck Dynasty" ordeal is not enough to show this hypocrisy, take vile left-wing comic Sarah Silverman. 

She appeared on The Howard Stern Show back in November. She made jokes about pornography, 9/11 widows, rape and anal sex. Stern asked if she has ever had anal sex to which she replies no, makes a vomiting sound and says:

What guy wants to do anal? It's like the tightest vagina that has sh*t inside.​
Where is the outrage from GLAAD on this? Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, a double whammy conservative Christian, only mentions that he prefers vaginas over a man's anus. That prompted GLAAD's ire. Not so for Silverman, whose Comedy Central show in 2008 was nominated for a GLAAD award.​


----------



## daws101

daveman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that pic proves bill maher right ....again
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/fys3MsKMpms]Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
Click to expand...

why did I know you make a false and ignorant statement...


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Yet more proof of the left's selective outrage:
> 
> FLASHBACK: Sarah Silverman Says Anal Sex is Disgusting, GLAAD Silent | Truth Revolt
> 
> There is an outright double standard that exists when it comes to commenting about homosexuality. If you are a conservative who disagrees with homosexuality you are called a homophobe. If you are a Christian who disagrees with homosexuality, you are even worse. But if you are a liberal, a Hollywood celebrity, or a left-wing comic, you get a blank check to say whatever you want.
> 
> If the recent "Duck Dynasty" ordeal is not enough to show this hypocrisy, take vile left-wing comic Sarah Silverman.
> 
> She appeared on The Howard Stern Show back in November. She made jokes about pornography, 9/11 widows, rape and anal sex. Stern asked if she has ever had anal sex to which she replies no, makes a vomiting sound and says:
> 
> What guy wants to do anal? It's like the tightest vagina that has sh*t inside.​
> Where is the outrage from GLAAD on this? Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, a double whammy conservative Christian, only mentions that he prefers vaginas over a man's anus. That prompted GLAAD's ire. Not so for Silverman, whose Comedy Central show in 2008 was nominated for a GLAAD award.​




Conflating an individual sexual preference with a blanket judgement of an entire lifestyle?

"I'm sorry Dave... I'm afraid we can't do that..."

oh I'm gettin' some of mileage out of this


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that pic proves bill maher right ....again
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/fys3MsKMpms]Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
Click to expand...


Actually that would be Bill Maher that got fired by ABC for agreeing with Dinesh d'Souza that the 9/11 hijackers could not be described as "cowards".


----------



## Papageorgio

daveman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that pic proves bill maher right ....again
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/fys3MsKMpms]Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
Click to expand...


He is a self absorbed asshole. He is one that gets away with spewing hate because liberals love who he spews at, conservative women, Christians and others the liberals don't like to tolerate.


----------



## Againsheila




----------



## daws101

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that pic proves bill maher right ....again
> 
> Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that would be Bill Maher that got fired by ABC for agreeing with Dinesh d'Souza that the 9/11 hijackers could not be described as "cowards".
Click to expand...

yep!


----------



## Papageorgio

Againsheila said:


>



Is it not amusing how liberals will dismiss hate, depending on the person spewing it?


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not amusing how liberals will dismiss hate, depending on the person spewing it?
Click to expand...


"Liberals"??

This was A&E -- not "liberals".

Btw how can you behead a guy and then hang him?  And after you've done either one how can you burn them "alive"?  Something not-well-thought-out about this specious image...


----------



## Againsheila

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not amusing how liberals will dismiss hate, depending on the person spewing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Liberals"??
> 
> This was A&E -- not "liberals".
> 
> Btw how can you behead a guy and then hang him?  And after you've done either one how can you burn them "alive"?  Something not-well-thought-out about this specious image...
Click to expand...


The word is "gays" as in "more than one".  I'm assuming that the one that was beheaded is not the one that was burned alive.


----------



## mskafka

With an estimated net worth of $400 million, I'm sure that the Robertsons wept themselves to sleep last night; hopefully on Eiderdown Pillows-because they've earned it.    

How do you "fire" Phil Robertson?

Some of Phil's statements have been taken out of context.  A couple of them may have been a bit crude for some people's tastes, but that's just the way he is.  He grew up in primitive conditions, with 6 siblings, no electricity, and apparently no indoor plumbing; 6 of the 7 siblings earned college degrees.  That's remarkable.  

I attended the churches of Christ, until I was 25.  If you think that what Phil said was rough, you should have heard some of the Elders of the churches I attended.  Mr. Robertson's pretty tame.  

The harshest criticism I've heard, has been from people who don't watch the show.  They've made Phil out to be a beast.


----------



## daws101

Papageorgio said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not amusing how liberals will dismiss hate, depending on the person spewing it?
Click to expand...

examples please!


----------



## Pogo

Againsheila said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not amusing how liberals will dismiss hate, depending on the person spewing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberals"??
> 
> This was A&E -- not "liberals".
> 
> Btw how can you behead a guy and then hang him?  And after you've done either one how can you burn them "alive"?  Something not-well-thought-out about this specious image...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is "gays" as in "more than one".  I'm assuming that the one that was beheaded is not the one that was burned alive.
Click to expand...




In any case Ron Burgundy's blanket "liberals" doesn't apply to either one.  And to the extent that the Iranian side does exist it's yet another warning sign of what theocrazy produces.  I don't know about Iran but the Inquisition burned a lot of people alive.  And they didn't even have to be gay.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

rdean said:


> Republicans see a hairy hillbilly who kills ducks as "creative" and a "Leader".  No wonder they hate gays.



I don't hate gays.
I do hate you however.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

daveman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that pic proves bill maher right ....again
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/fys3MsKMpms]Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
Click to expand...


Isn't it wonderful that the libs have such a wonderful cheerleader for America in Bill Maher  ?


----------



## bodecea

This silliness is still going on, isn't it?


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duck Calls | Duck Commander
> 
> This is the product they were selling long before the show came along -- and they were quite successful with it.
> 
> They don't need the show.  It's just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fun might be over.
> 
> Time to hit the pond and start blasting ducks again.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not like they're going to starve to death.
Click to expand...


Then what's all the hubbub..bub?


----------



## candycorn

thanatos144 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will translate this liberal post for you all. It says I don't need proof to hate I'm a liberal
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have more than 1 thing to do today and couldn't wait for Jethro to finish whatever he started; sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of that tolerance from you
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


No, More of that mindless babble from him (and you).


----------



## candycorn

Againsheila said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5VmM4pRhM
> 
> So, IMO A&E should have known who and what they signed up.
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson appears to verbally attack gay people in newly emerged video - NY Daily News
> 
> I've heard the first few minutes, but I doubt that I can stick it out for the long haul. I have a tough time with his mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was more offended at how boring he was...didn't stick around long enough to get to the homophobic part if there was any there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get past (It's 2010 AD).  Still, I support his right to give whatever speech he wants.
Click to expand...


As do I.

I also support A&E's right to have whatever and whomever they want on their airwaves.  

Free speech is free but not free of consequences.  Never has been, never will be.


----------



## candycorn

daws101 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> All growed up....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow they look less creepy with the beards.  Hard to pull off that look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seems to me that the Robertson's and A&E got together and created the redneck persona to grab a certain audience demographic...
> if you watch that network with any regularity you'll notice DD is one of a long list of red necked themed shows...
Click to expand...


A&E is usually what I watch on Saturdays while cleaning the house...the Hoarders shows inspire me to keep a minimalist lifestyle as much as I can.


----------



## Againsheila

candycorn said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was more offended at how boring he was...didn't stick around long enough to get to the homophobic part if there was any there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get past (It's 2010 AD).  Still, I support his right to give whatever speech he wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do I.
> 
> I also support A&E's right to have whatever and whomever they want on their airwaves.
> 
> Free speech is free but not free of consequences.  Never has been, never will be.
Click to expand...


Do you also support the people who are calling for a boycott of A&E?  After all, free speech is for everyone.

Personally, I think A&E made a big mistake in underestimating the value of family for the Robertson's.  They won't go on without their patriarch.


----------



## Pogo

Againsheila said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get past (It's 2010 AD).  Still, I support his right to give whatever speech he wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do I.
> 
> I also support A&E's right to have whatever and whomever they want on their airwaves.
> 
> Free speech is free but not free of consequences.  Never has been, never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you also support the people who are calling for a boycott of A&E?  After all, free speech is for everyone.
> 
> Personally, I think A&E made a big mistake in underestimating the value of family for the Robertson's.  They won't go on without their patriarch.
Click to expand...


Boycotts don't work.  Not on the boob tube.


----------



## Esmeralda

Basically, the public votes.  If you are a visible representative of your employers, and you behave publically in a way the employers object to, they are justified in firing you.  If an elected official behaves in a way or says things his/her voters don't like, they vote him out of office, or even drive him out before any election comes up. If you are a businessman who is a visible representative of your employer and you publically say or do something the employer objects to, something they think gives a bad impression of the company, they will fire you.  People have the right to free speech in the sense they can't be stifled or imprisoned by the government, but the public  or employers can object to what you say and you can be fired: it happens all the time and isn't just about saying things not considered PC.  This guy represents A&E; if A&E viewers object to his statements, the majority of them, or even if the network bosses object, he's going to lose his job.  He isn't going to be arrested, so his free speech is intact.  Be glad you don't live in a country where saying something will land you in jail.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Making a big deal out of A&E's decision publicly serves no purpose other than to put a spotlight on the right.

We fall for this fucking trap every damn time. Will we EVER learn?


----------



## Pogo

Well done GMU.  Somebody understands how attention management (publicity) works. ^^


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not amusing how liberals will dismiss hate, depending on the person spewing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Liberals"??
> 
> This was A&E -- not "liberals".
> 
> Btw how can you behead a guy and then hang him?  And after you've done either one how can you burn them "alive"?  Something not-well-thought-out about this specious image...
Click to expand...


Uhhhh....you need reading courses.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Againsheila said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get past (It's 2010 AD).  Still, I support his right to give whatever speech he wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do I.
> 
> I also support A&E's right to have whatever and whomever they want on their airwaves.
> 
> Free speech is free but not free of consequences.  Never has been, never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you also support the people who are calling for a boycott of A&E?  After all, free speech is for everyone.
Click to expand...


What is it with conservatives and their comprehensive ignorance of fundamental Constitutional principles.    

This is not a free speech issue; private citizens advocating for a boycott of a given private entity absent government involvement in no way violates free speech. Only government can place restrictions on speech where appropriate and in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## candycorn

Againsheila said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get past (It's 2010 AD).  Still, I support his right to give whatever speech he wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do I.
> 
> I also support A&E's right to have whatever and whomever they want on their airwaves.
> 
> Free speech is free but not free of consequences.  Never has been, never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you also support the people who are calling for a boycott of A&E?  After all, free speech is for everyone.
> 
> Personally, I think A&E made a big mistake in underestimating the value of family for the Robertson's.  They won't go on without their patriarch.
Click to expand...


Yes to the first part.  Absolutely...every right to boycott for this or any other reason.

Disagree to the 2nd part.  Nobody will miss DD when/if it leave A&E.  We got along fine without them before and we'll get along fine without them.  Like any TV show.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Well done GMU.  Somebody understands how attention management (publicity) works. ^^



Yep, that's the way it works, and for every action, there is a reaction, and this is the reaction and A&E could suffer a reaction. And another network could pick up the show and we have another reaction. Ask Imus, he knows all about it.


----------



## Papageorgio

candycorn said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As do I.
> 
> I also support A&E's right to have whatever and whomever they want on their airwaves.
> 
> Free speech is free but not free of consequences.  Never has been, never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also support the people who are calling for a boycott of A&E?  After all, free speech is for everyone.
> 
> Personally, I think A&E made a big mistake in underestimating the value of family for the Robertson's.  They won't go on without their patriarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes to the first part.  Absolutely...every right to boycott for this or any other reason.
> 
> Disagree to the 2nd part.  Nobody will miss DD when/if it leave A&E.  We got along fine without them before and we'll get along fine without them.  Like any TV show.
Click to expand...


I bet another network may try to pick it up and see where it goes. Also A&E May wind up losing revenue from canceling the show. I have watched A&E since they took off Law & Order.


----------



## candycorn

Pogo said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As do I.
> 
> I also support A&E's right to have whatever and whomever they want on their airwaves.
> 
> Free speech is free but not free of consequences.  Never has been, never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also support the people who are calling for a boycott of A&E?  After all, free speech is for everyone.
> 
> Personally, I think A&E made a big mistake in underestimating the value of family for the Robertson's.  They won't go on without their patriarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boycotts don't work.  Not on the boob tube.
Click to expand...


Not at all...any loss of viewership creates ripples.  One good thing about the digital television is that viewership is almost instant.  A&E will fill it.  Then in the Summer of September, they'll start showing the latest season of Criminal Minds thats in syndication and evertything will be okay.


----------



## daws101

DigitalDrifter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that pic proves bill maher right ....again
> 
> Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it wonderful that the libs have such a wonderful cheerleader for America in Bill Maher  ?
Click to expand...

yes it is for the actual America...not so much for the myth buyers..


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Michael Richards currently has a television show. But people round here don't tend to actually fact check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we don't really pay attention to shows no one is actually watching.
> 
> Geezus, it's on "TV Land".  That doesn't even count as a network, does it?
> 
> So he's a minor character on a TV series starring a washed up fat chick on a basic cable network.  Yeah, man, his career has really taking off. He's totally rebounded from those racist comments.
> 
> 
> Now, let's move on to Mel Gibson. How's his career going since he outed himself as a Jew-hating drunk?
> 
> Well, he didn't work for four years.  And the movies he made when he did come back all turned into commercial bombs.
> 
> Sorry, man, you don't come back professionally from being a bigot.
> 
> Now, hey, the DD guys might survive this. The whole appeal of this show is "Let's laugh at the Rednecks", so why are we surprised when they act like.... rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you just admit to being wrong and shut the hell up ?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Because I wasn't wrong or anything close to wrong.  

Michaels said the N-word.  His career was done.  
Gibson said the J-word. His career was done.  
Patterson's career is done.  The other shoe is going to drop, and that's when Wal-Mart stop carrying their overpriced duck calls.


----------



## Papageorgio

daws101 said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it wonderful that the libs have such a wonderful cheerleader for America in Bill Maher  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes it is for the actual America...not so much for the myth buyers..
Click to expand...


America is America because it allows hate filled, untalented people like Maher on the air. Censoring these dopes would not allow their hate to be exposed for others to see.


----------



## daws101

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we don't really pay attention to shows no one is actually watching.
> 
> Geezus, it's on "TV Land".  That doesn't even count as a network, does it?
> 
> So he's a minor character on a TV series starring a washed up fat chick on a basic cable network.  Yeah, man, his career has really taking off. He's totally rebounded from those racist comments.
> 
> 
> Now, let's move on to Mel Gibson. How's his career going since he outed himself as a Jew-hating drunk?
> 
> Well, he didn't work for four years.  And the movies he made when he did come back all turned into commercial bombs.
> 
> Sorry, man, you don't come back professionally from being a bigot.
> 
> Now, hey, the DD guys might survive this. The whole appeal of this show is "Let's laugh at the Rednecks", so why are we surprised when they act like.... rednecks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just admit to being wrong and shut the hell up ?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I wasn't wrong or anything close to wrong.
> 
> Michaels said the N-word.  His career was done.
> Gibson said the J-word. His career was done.
> Patterson's career is done.  The other shoe is going to drop, and that's when Wal-Mart stop carrying their overpriced duck calls.
Click to expand...

don't forget the shoes, t shirts and camo cargo pants!


----------



## hunarcy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What is it with conservatives and their comprehensive ignorance of fundamental Constitutional principles.
> 
> This is not a free speech issue; private citizens advocating for a boycott of a given private entity absent government involvement in no way violates free speech. Only government can place restrictions on speech where appropriate and in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence.



I disagree.  It is a Free Speech issue.  It's NOT a First Amendment issue.


----------



## JoeB131

I guess I'm having a hard time understand the Right Wing Outrage.  

A&E has made a business decision that they won't make money airing a dirty old bigot.... 

Aren't you guys normally all about big corporations making money?


----------



## daws101

Papageorgio said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it wonderful that the libs have such a wonderful cheerleader for America in Bill Maher  ?
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is for the actual America...not so much for the myth buyers..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America is America because it allows hate filled, untalented people like Maher on the air. Censoring these dopes would not allow their hate to be exposed for others to see.
Click to expand...

actually bill maher is far more talented and well informed  then everyone on fox news.


----------



## daws101

hunarcy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with conservatives and their comprehensive ignorance of fundamental Constitutional principles.
> 
> This is not a &#8216;free speech&#8217; issue; private citizens advocating for a boycott of a given private entity absent government involvement in no way &#8216;violates&#8217; free speech. Only government can place restrictions on speech where appropriate and in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  It is a Free Speech issue.  It's NOT a First Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

incorrect! Roberson was not prevented from speaking his mind, G.Q. was not forced to edit, redact. or in any way change the interview..this  nontroversy will help sell more issues...
it's been said before seems it needs to be said again, free speech has consequences and responsibilities....


----------



## Papageorgio

daws101 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is for the actual America...not so much for the myth buyers..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is America because it allows hate filled, untalented people like Maher on the air. Censoring these dopes would not allow their hate to be exposed for others to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually bill maher is far more talented and well informed  then everyone on fox news.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't know I don't watch FoxNews, however, I can't imagine anyone dumber than Maher, what is so funny...he has liberals convinced he is intelligent.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> I guess I'm having a hard time understand the Right Wing Outrage.
> 
> A&E has made a business decision that they won't make money airing a dirty old bigot....
> 
> Aren't you guys normally all about big corporations making money?



The corporation made a decision, just like MSNBC did with the asshole Brashir, I disagree with letting either go, but not my call to make.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm having a hard time understand the Right Wing Outrage.
> 
> A&E has made a business decision that they won't make money airing a dirty old bigot....
> 
> Aren't you guys normally all about big corporations making money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The corporation made a decision, just like MSNBC did with the asshole Brashir, I disagree with letting either go, but not my call to make.
Click to expand...


But it was probably the right decision to make given financial realities. 

Now, I think Robertson is still salvagable... I think he needs to get on an apology tour, and frankly, they'll declare him "rehabilitated" by the time they start getting ready to film season 5.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm having a hard time understand the Right Wing Outrage.
> 
> A&E has made a business decision that they won't make money airing a dirty old bigot....
> 
> Aren't you guys normally all about big corporations making money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The corporation made a decision, just like MSNBC did with the asshole Brashir, I disagree with letting either go, but not my call to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was probably the right decision to make given financial realities.
> 
> Now, I think Robertson is still salvagable... I think he needs to get on an apology tour, and frankly, they'll declare him "rehabilitated" by the time they start getting ready to film season 5.
Click to expand...


MSNBC had nothing to lose keeping him, he was controversial and would possibly attract viewers. Considering who is watching Duck Dynasty, they aren't going to lose viewership and it is one of their top rated shows from what I understand. I see all their crap selling in stores now.


----------



## daveman

daws101 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that pic proves bill maher right ....again
> 
> Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why did I know you make a false and ignorant statement...
Click to expand...

I dunno.  Why do you know something that's not true?

Look, Slappy, your acknowledgement of Maher's homophobia and misogyny are not required.  Nor will your pouting and foot-stamping make it not exist.

Run along now.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more proof of the left's selective outrage:
> 
> FLASHBACK: Sarah Silverman Says Anal Sex is Disgusting, GLAAD Silent | Truth Revolt
> 
> There is an outright double standard that exists when it comes to commenting about homosexuality. If you are a conservative who disagrees with homosexuality you are called a homophobe. If you are a Christian who disagrees with homosexuality, you are even worse. But if you are a liberal, a Hollywood celebrity, or a left-wing comic, you get a blank check to say whatever you want.
> 
> If the recent "Duck Dynasty" ordeal is not enough to show this hypocrisy, take vile left-wing comic Sarah Silverman.
> 
> She appeared on The Howard Stern Show back in November. She made jokes about pornography, 9/11 widows, rape and anal sex. Stern asked if she has ever had anal sex to which she replies no, makes a vomiting sound and says:
> 
> What guy wants to do anal? It's like the tightest vagina that has sh*t inside.​
> Where is the outrage from GLAAD on this? Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, a double whammy conservative Christian, only mentions that he prefers vaginas over a man's anus. That prompted GLAAD's ire. Not so for Silverman, whose Comedy Central show in 2008 was nominated for a GLAAD award.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conflating an individual sexual preference with a blanket judgement of an entire lifestyle?
> 
> "I'm sorry Dave... I'm afraid we can't do that..."
> 
> oh I'm gettin' some of mileage out of this
Click to expand...

Don't know why.  It perfectly illustrates GLAAD's hypocrisy.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that pic proves bill maher right ....again
> 
> Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that would be Bill Maher that got fired by ABC for agreeing with Dinesh d'Souza that the 9/11 hijackers could not be described as "cowards".
Click to expand...

And that makes his homophobia and misogyny disappear...how?  Magic?


----------



## daveman

Papageorgio said:


> He is a self absorbed asshole. He is one that gets away with spewing hate because liberals love who he spews at, conservative women, Christians and others the liberals don't like to tolerate.



Exactly.  The left doesn't mind hate at all -- as long as it's directed towards the people they hate.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is America because it allows hate filled, untalented people like Maher on the air. Censoring these dopes would not allow their hate to be exposed for others to see.
> 
> 
> 
> actually bill maher is far more talented and well informed  then everyone on fox news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't know I don't watch FoxNews, however, I can't imagine anyone dumber than Maher, what is so funny...he has liberals convinced he is intelligent.
Click to expand...


So you don't watch Fox News but.... "liberals" think Bill Maher is intelligent.

Thanks for that case study in blanket statement immunity.  (BSI)


----------



## daveman

mskafka said:


> With an estimated net worth of $400 million, I'm sure that the Robertsons wept themselves to sleep last night; hopefully on Eiderdown Pillows-because they've earned it.
> 
> How do you "fire" Phil Robertson?
> 
> Some of Phil's statements have been taken out of context.  A couple of them may have been a bit crude for some people's tastes, but that's just the way he is.  He grew up in primitive conditions, with 6 siblings, no electricity, and apparently no indoor plumbing; 6 of the 7 siblings earned college degrees.  That's remarkable.
> 
> I attended the churches of Christ, until I was 25.  If you think that what Phil said was rough, you should have heard some of the Elders of the churches I attended.  Mr. Robertson's pretty tame.
> 
> The harshest criticism I've heard, has been from people who don't watch the show.  They've made Phil out to be a beast.


Not only do they not watch the show, they don't want anyone else to watch the show, either.

The left firmly supports freedom of choice...as long as you choose what they dictate.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more proof of the left's selective outrage:
> 
> FLASHBACK: Sarah Silverman Says Anal Sex is Disgusting, GLAAD Silent | Truth Revolt
> 
> There is an outright double standard that exists when it comes to commenting about homosexuality. If you are a conservative who disagrees with homosexuality you are called a homophobe. If you are a Christian who disagrees with homosexuality, you are even worse. But if you are a liberal, a Hollywood celebrity, or a left-wing comic, you get a blank check to say whatever you want.
> 
> If the recent "Duck Dynasty" ordeal is not enough to show this hypocrisy, take vile left-wing comic Sarah Silverman.
> 
> She appeared on The Howard Stern Show back in November. She made jokes about pornography, 9/11 widows, rape and anal sex. Stern asked if she has ever had anal sex to which she replies no, makes a vomiting sound and says:
> 
> What guy wants to do anal? It's like the tightest vagina that has sh*t inside.​
> Where is the outrage from GLAAD on this? Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, a double whammy conservative Christian, only mentions that he prefers vaginas over a man's anus. That prompted GLAAD's ire. Not so for Silverman, whose Comedy Central show in 2008 was nominated for a GLAAD award.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conflating an individual sexual preference with a blanket judgement of an entire lifestyle?
> 
> "I'm sorry Dave... I'm afraid we can't do that..."
> 
> oh I'm gettin' some of mileage out of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know why.  It perfectly illustrates GLAAD's hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


I don't follow you.


----------



## daveman

DigitalDrifter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that pic proves bill maher right ....again
> 
> Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always  - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it wonderful that the libs have such a wonderful cheerleader for America in Bill Maher  ?
Click to expand...

Remember...you're only dumb and uneducated if you disagree with liberals.

If you mindlessly repeat liberal talking points, you're a witty, erudite, independent thinker, even if you dropped out of high school.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean Bill Maher the homophobe and misogynist?
> 
> Disgusting? Bill Maher: Priests Would Approve Birth Control if Altar Boys Got Pregnant (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Shakesville: Bill Maher: Still A Douche
> 
> Bill Maher: Master of misogyny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that would be Bill Maher that got fired by ABC for agreeing with Dinesh d'Souza that the 9/11 hijackers could not be described as "cowards".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes his homophobia and misogyny disappear...how?  Magic?
Click to expand...


It doesn't.  But when did they appear in the first place?

No, I'm offering what we call a counterbalance to these wacko ideas that "the left yammeryammer this" and "the left yammeryammer that".  Maher got the same thing.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun might be over.
> 
> Time to hit the pond and start blasting ducks again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they're going to starve to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what's all the hubbub..bub?
Click to expand...

The hubbub is a small group of the population demanding that a product they don't even consume be eliminated from the marketplace.

It's like a group of vegan Buddhist unicycle riders demanding McDonald's stop serving meat products.


----------



## Papageorgio

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more proof of the left's selective outrage:
> 
> FLASHBACK: Sarah Silverman Says Anal Sex is Disgusting, GLAAD Silent | Truth Revolt
> 
> There is an outright double standard that exists when it comes to commenting about homosexuality. If you are a conservative who disagrees with homosexuality you are called a homophobe. If you are a Christian who disagrees with homosexuality, you are even worse. But if you are a liberal, a Hollywood celebrity, or a left-wing comic, you get a blank check to say whatever you want.
> 
> If the recent "Duck Dynasty" ordeal is not enough to show this hypocrisy, take vile left-wing comic Sarah Silverman.
> 
> She appeared on The Howard Stern Show back in November. She made jokes about pornography, 9/11 widows, rape and anal sex. Stern asked if she has ever had anal sex to which she replies no, makes a vomiting sound and says:
> 
> What guy wants to do anal? It's like the tightest vagina that has sh*t inside.​
> Where is the outrage from GLAAD on this? Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, a double whammy conservative Christian, only mentions that he prefers vaginas over a man's anus. That prompted GLAAD's ire. Not so for Silverman, whose Comedy Central show in 2008 was nominated for a GLAAD award.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conflating an individual sexual preference with a blanket judgement of an entire lifestyle?
> 
> "I'm sorry Dave... I'm afraid we can't do that..."
> 
> oh I'm gettin' some of mileage out of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know why.  It perfectly illustrates GLAAD's hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


Liberals love justifying their hypocrisy.


----------



## HenryBHough

Patriarch probably is salvageable.

A&E?

Not so much.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> I guess I'm having a hard time understand the Right Wing Outrage.
> 
> A&E has made a business decision that they won't make money airing a dirty old bigot....
> 
> Aren't you guys normally all about big corporations making money?



Who among the people screeching about Robertson actually watches the show?

Hint:  Not many.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conflating an individual sexual preference with a blanket judgement of an entire lifestyle?
> 
> "I'm sorry Dave... I'm afraid we can't do that..."
> 
> oh I'm gettin' some of mileage out of this
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know why.  It perfectly illustrates GLAAD's hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't follow you.
Click to expand...


That's okay.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that would be Bill Maher that got fired by ABC for agreeing with Dinesh d'Souza that the 9/11 hijackers could not be described as "cowards".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that makes his homophobia and misogyny disappear...how?  Magic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't.  But when did they appear in the first place?
> 
> No, I'm offering what we call a counterbalance to these wacko ideas that "the left yammeryammer this" and "the left yammeryammer that".  Maher got the same thing.
Click to expand...

But for different reasons.  Certainly not for his homophobia.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually bill maher is far more talented and well informed  then everyone on fox news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't know I don't watch FoxNews, however, I can't imagine anyone dumber than Maher, what is so funny...he has liberals convinced he is intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't watch Fox News but.... "liberals" think Bill Maher is intelligent.
> 
> Thanks for that case study in blanket statement immunity.  (BSI)
Click to expand...


They seem to think he is intelligent, I saw him a couple times, he is not very intelligent, but I do think he really loves himself.


----------



## paperview

I know Zero about "Duck Dynasty" - so I youtubed it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3b04PBTv_0]Duck Dynasty: Boys Will Be Boys - YouTube[/ame]

All I gotta say, man, what a bunch of flippin idiots.

That is all.


----------



## Avatar4321

DigitalDrifter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans see a hairy hillbilly who kills ducks as "creative" and a "Leader".  No wonder they hate gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate gays.
> I do hate you however.
Click to expand...


You hate rdean? He hardly seems worth the effort.

I pity the man. He deludes himself.


----------



## PredFan

Hypocrite, thy name is Democrat.


----------



## gallantwarrior

TheOldSchool said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this statement.  Democrats have not "co-opted" these people.  But these people are extremely wary of the republican party because there is an open belief amongst republicans that these people's cultures are eroding and damaging this country.  That's a big turn off and, in my opinion, the major obstacle facing the GOP in attracting minority votes.
> 
> I'm not saying republicans are racist at all.  That's a completely separate idea.
Click to expand...


Where do such groups get the impression that the GOP represents such beliefs?  They get it from the opposition that would much prefer that the GOP, or any conservative group, be represented as "anti-XXX".  Again, it's the party line and it serves them well because it tends to sway people's opinions and foster their support for the party that is "on their side".


----------



## Pogo

PredFan said:


> Hypocrite, thy name is Democrat.



We shot that one down hours ago.  Nice try.  It's got problems.  Lots of 'em.


----------



## Pogo

paperview said:


> I know Zero about "Duck Dynasty" - so I youtubed it.
> 
> Duck Dynasty: Boys Will Be Boys - YouTube
> 
> All I gotta say, man, what a bunch of flippin idiots.
> 
> That is all.



Nobody has to ask me why I gave up TV...


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that makes his homophobia and misogyny disappear...how?  Magic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't.  But when did they appear in the first place?
> 
> No, I'm offering what we call a counterbalance to these wacko ideas that "the left yammeryammer this" and "the left yammeryammer that".  Maher got the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But for different reasons.  Certainly not for his homophobia.
Click to expand...


Right.

.... and?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Putin is anti-gay and runs Obama's foreign policy


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocrite, thy name is Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shot that one down hours ago.  Nice try.  It's got problems.  Lots of 'em.
Click to expand...


You think it got shot down, you just can't explain liberal hypocrisy. Nice try.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocrite, thy name is Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shot that one down hours ago.  Nice try.  It's got problems.  Lots of 'em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it got shot down, you just can't explain liberal hypocrisy. Nice try.
Click to expand...


Oh no, I know I shot it down.  Would you like to get embarrassed again?

Roll tape....




Pogo said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberals"??
> 
> This was A&E -- not "liberals".
> 
> Btw how can you behead a guy and then hang him?  And after you've done either one how can you burn them "alive"?  Something not-well-thought-out about this specious image...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word is "gays" as in "more than one".  I'm assuming that the one that was beheaded is not the one that was burned alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case Ron Burgundy's blanket "liberals" doesn't apply to either one.  And to the extent that the Iranian side does exist it's yet another warning sign of what theocrazy produces.  I don't know about Iran but the Inquisition burned a lot of people alive.  And they didn't even have to be gay.
Click to expand...

 

How's the labelmaker holding up?  It's been getting a lot of use today....

Fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Esmeralda

paperview said:


> I know Zero about "Duck Dynasty" - so I youtubed it.
> 
> Duck Dynasty: Boys Will Be Boys - YouTube
> 
> All I gotta say, man, what a bunch of flippin idiots.
> 
> That is all.



I've never seen it either, but just from the description of it, what you say makes all kinds of sense.

I'm surprised it's on A & E, which used to be a pretty good network with material that promoted 'culture.' Has it sold out too?


----------



## ItsOnlyMe

If everyone were fired for thinking or even saying anything against gays, we'd be at 95% unemployment.  If I were in Phil's shoes, I'd make no more mention of this, and simply sever ties with A&E and move on to another network. or take my money and retire.  Unfortunately all this does is once again fuel the idea that the poor gays are "victims" once again.  I am sick of it.  It plays right into the gays' hands. Once again they are center of attention. They are eating it up.  And just because someone doesn't think being "gay" is normal, that doesn't mean we hate them or fear them (don't make me laugh!) or anything else.  It is just not normal.  Period.


----------



## Pogo

Esmeralda said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know Zero about "Duck Dynasty" - so I youtubed it.
> 
> Duck Dynasty: Boys Will Be Boys - YouTube
> 
> All I gotta say, man, what a bunch of flippin idiots.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen it either, but just from the description of it, what you say makes all kinds of sense.
> 
> I'm surprised it's on A & E, which used to be a pretty good network with material that promoted 'culture.' Has it sold out too?
Click to expand...


Yeah, a while ago unfortunately.  It's now a worthless junkyard of shows about freaks or freaks collecting junk.  A day in the life of a pawn shop and such.  NatGeo has gone down the same path; I made the comparison last night between those channels and TheDoctorIsIn noted that they're commonly owned.  So that's probably a story right there.

Ignominious regresson for a network whose first name is "Arts".  That's a joke now.


----------



## Esmeralda

ItsOnlyMe said:


> If everyone were fired for thinking or even saying anything against gays, we'd be at 95% unemployment.  If I were in Phil's shoes, I'd make no more mention of this, and simply sever ties with A&E and move on to another network. or take my money and retire.  Unfortunately all this does is once again fuel the idea that the poor gays are "victims" once again.  I am sick of it.  It plays right into the gays' hands. Once again they are center of attention. They are eating it up.  And just because someone doesn't think being "gay" is normal, that doesn't mean we hate them or fear them (don't make me laugh!) or anything else.  *It is just not normal.  Period*.



How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't.  But when did they appear in the first place?
> 
> No, I'm offering what we call a counterbalance to these wacko ideas that "the left yammeryammer this" and "the left yammeryammer that".  Maher got the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> But for different reasons.  Certainly not for his homophobia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> .... and?
Click to expand...

And nothing.  Robertson is getting crucified for his alleged homophobia.

Maher gets a free pass for his.

It doesn't matter what is said.  All that matters is who's saying it.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But for different reasons.  Certainly not for his homophobia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> .... and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And nothing.  Robertson is getting crucified for his alleged homophobia.
> 
> Maher gets a free pass for his.
> 
> It doesn't matter what is said.  All that matters is who's saying it.
Click to expand...


Getting fired is a "pass"?  Did you read my post?

Again... morals clause.  Standard procedure when you sign up to be a "reality" show actor.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> .... and?
> 
> 
> 
> And nothing.  Robertson is getting crucified for his alleged homophobia.
> 
> Maher gets a free pass for his.
> 
> It doesn't matter what is said.  All that matters is who's saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting fired is a "pass"?  Did you read my post?
> 
> Again... morals clause.  Standard procedure when you sign up to be a "reality" show actor.
Click to expand...

Again...he wasn't fired for his homophobia.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And nothing.  Robertson is getting crucified for his alleged homophobia.
> 
> Maher gets a free pass for his.
> 
> It doesn't matter what is said.  All that matters is who's saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting fired is a "pass"?  Did you read my post?
> 
> Again... morals clause.  Standard procedure when you sign up to be a "reality" show actor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...he wasn't fired for his homophobia.
Click to expand...


Right -- he was fired (or whatever it was) most likely on the morals clause.
Who are we talking about?


----------



## American_Jihad

*'Duck Dynasty' family pushes back: 'Cannot imagine' show without Phil*​
By Lynette Rice and James Hibberd on Dec 19, 2013 at 9:55PM

The Robertson clan is sticking together. In a new twist to the Duck Dynasty controversy, the family behind A&E&#8217;s hit series released a statement saying they &#8220;cannot imagine&#8221; doing the unscripted show without patriarch Phil Robertson.

The family posted the remarks on their website after the network suspended Robertson for anti-gay and racially charged comments he made in a GQ magazine interview.

...

Though the tight-knit Louisiana clan doesn&#8217;t indicate any intent to leave the show, the statement certainly suggests they don&#8217;t believe the show could continue without the patriarch. As our analysis pointed out earlier, a Duck Dynasty without Phil Robertson would seem odd. He may not be the focus of the series, but his absence will inevitability remind viewers of the controversy and add to the impression that the program is far from &#8220;reality.&#8221; The show is supposed to revolve around the wealthy family, who makes duck callers for hunters.

...

Opines one TV business affairs expert, &#8220;Other than wanting to distance themselves from those statements, I&#8217;m not sure how A&E would have legal grounds to fire them for breach of contract.&#8221;

Either way, A&E is in a major pickle. By suspending the &#8220;Duck Commander,&#8221; executives infuriated the cast and conservative fans who love him. 
...

Fans have rallied in support of Phil Robertson. More than 500,000 Duck Dynasty fans have Liked a Facebook page supporting an A&E boycott, while more than 70,000 have signed a change.org petition asking for the network to return him to the series.

'Duck Dynasty' family pushes back | Inside TV | EW.com


----------



## Pogo

> a Duck Dynasty without Phil Robertson would seem odd



A Duck Dynasty with or without him doesn't seem "odd"??


----------



## American_Jihad

Pogo said:


> a Duck Dynasty without Phil Robertson would seem odd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Duck Dynasty with or without him doesn't seem "odd"??
Click to expand...


PoGo/games, you'll have to take that up with the liberal source/ http://insidetv.ew.com...:eusa_angel:


----------



## Pogo

American_Jihad said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a Duck Dynasty without Phil Robertson would seem odd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Duck Dynasty with or without him doesn't seem "odd"??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PoGo/games, you'll have to take that up with the liberal source/ http://insidetv.ew.com...:eusa_angel:
Click to expand...


No actually I don't.  I've seen the show.


----------



## gallantwarrior

American_Jihad said:


> *'Duck Dynasty' family pushes back: 'Cannot imagine' show without Phil*​
> By Lynette Rice and James Hibberd on Dec 19, 2013 at 9:55PM
> 
> The Robertson clan is sticking together. In a new twist to the Duck Dynasty controversy, the family behind A&Es hit series released a statement saying they cannot imagine doing the unscripted show without patriarch Phil Robertson.
> 
> The family posted the remarks on their website after the network suspended Robertson for anti-gay and racially charged comments he made in a GQ magazine interview.
> 
> ...
> 
> Though the tight-knit Louisiana clan doesnt indicate any intent to leave the show, the statement certainly suggests they dont believe the show could continue without the patriarch. As our analysis pointed out earlier, a Duck Dynasty without Phil Robertson would seem odd. He may not be the focus of the series, but his absence will inevitability remind viewers of the controversy and add to the impression that the program is far from reality. The show is supposed to revolve around the wealthy family, who makes duck callers for hunters.
> 
> ...
> 
> Opines one TV business affairs expert, Other than wanting to distance themselves from those statements, Im not sure how A&E would have legal grounds to fire them for breach of contract.
> 
> Either way, A&E is in a major pickle. By suspending the Duck Commander, executives infuriated the cast and conservative fans who love him.
> ...
> 
> Fans have rallied in support of Phil Robertson. More than 500,000 Duck Dynasty fans have Liked a Facebook page supporting an A&E boycott, while more than 70,000 have signed a change.org petition asking for the network to return him to the series.
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty' family pushes back | Inside TV | EW.com



Here are a couple of lists of A&E sponsors.  Start contacting sponsors to let them know you cannot support any company that would continue to advertise on this subversive network that fails to support the First Amendment.  You can contact A&E directly, too.
Support Duck Dynasty! A&E Sponsors Boycott List/Contact Info | Protests & Demonstrations

DO IT: A&E List of Advertisers - Hit the Network Where it Hurts - The Wallet! | Clash Daily


----------



## Politico

Esmeralda said:


> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.



Seriously 60 pages is sad enough. But this is ridiculous. I hate to be crude but it seems to be the only way to call the trolls out. The purpose of sex is for procreation. That is it's function. That is normal. A guy dumping a load in another guy's ass is not. Like it or not that's reality. If you think it is then fine. But have the spine to say hey it ain't right but they have a right to do it.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Dat media will get you when you say stupid shit.

The guy has the right to his opinion. His employer has the right to suspend him if they consider it offensive. Capitalism in action. He is free to take his show to another network.


----------



## strollingbones

phil isnt stupid...and he is fundie..and they have been attempting to reign him and his religious beliefs in on the show.....anyone could see this coming who followed the show....the family objects to words that are not dirty being bleeped....etc....the brother who is joining the show is a minister....and phil is outspoken....i have no problem with what phil said.....and i have no problem with the consequences of his actions.....nor do i have any problem with the consequences a & e will have for this..which one will overcome the consequences is the question....


----------



## strollingbones

'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much - latimes.com

seems phil was out to bitch slap a & e


----------



## strollingbones

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

who will win the bitch slap fest?


----------



## Gracie

I thought the show, when it first came on, as just a joke on playing on laughing at rednecks. I watched it a few times, and found myself busting up. I laughed at them. But the more I watched, the more I began to laugh WITH them. I wanted what they had..family, honor for their country, love for their families. Yes, they hunt. That turned me off. But eventually I saw they didn't hunt for sport. They hunted to feed their family. It was not "fun" to torture an animal or collect it's head or fur only. They EAT it. It is not wasted. 
I think I am like many people who first saw it on tv. It was for a laugh. Turned out to be something much more, though. It turned into people wanting what used to be and is no longer. A longing for family to just be themselves, loving each other, supporting each other, laughing with each other and just living the life they have.

The rest of the shows on A&E suck. Where are the arts? All we get is hardcore pawn stars who show the worst of blacks and obnoxious thieves running their shop, greedy idiots running one in Vegas, two morons digging thru peoples barns to find "treasures" and now the newest one about some cowgirl skanks, storage wars that are nothing but scripted bullshit. I ask again..WHERE ARE THE ARTS?  There are none. Except on KCET.

Bah. Phooey on A&E. Everything sucks on tv lately so I mainly watch reruns of Will and Grace, Frasier, NCIS, Law and Order and movies if any decent ones are on. Oh, and food channel because I love watching Cut Throat Kitchen. Nothing beats watching some guy try to fry an egg on a fry pan upside down. lol. The rest? *spit*


----------



## Esmeralda

Politico said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously 60 pages is sad enough. But this is ridiculous. I hate to be crude but it seems to be the only way to call the trolls out. The purpose of sex is for procreation. That is it's function. That is normal. A guy dumping a load in another guy's ass is not. Like it or not that's reality. If you think it is then fine. But have the spine to say hey it ain't right but they have a right to do it.
Click to expand...


I'm not a troll, you fucking jackass, but you are an idiot.  You narrow minded, ignorant fools think there is only one way to see the world and that is your way. You've never opened or used your mind long enough to think about anything; never opened up and read a book long enough to learn anything outside your narrow little world.

Animals in the animal kingdom engage in same sex sexual activity.  Ten percent of the human population is and always has been homosexual.  How do you define normal?  It is a subjective term. You and your ilk do not have the finite definition of normal, fool.  You don't even realize that what you consider 'normal' or 'natural' is only what you consider it to be. You don't even realize that there are no absolutes, that the rest of the world does not have to adhere to your religious or personal perspective on what is right and what is wrong.  You are an idiot for not even being able to understand that there are other perspectives of reality than your own.


----------



## mskafka

What I would like to see, is Phil's VERBATIM statements; especially regarding African Americans:



> ]" The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I&#8217;m with the blacks, because we&#8217;re white trash."


Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour

I will never disagree that racism existed then, and exists now; I've seen it, and even at 5'3 was usually one of the first to stand up to a bully.   What I lack in height, I have in resonance.  Gays were TORMENTED more than any group, in my high school.  

He probably either said or meant we (his family) were "white trash."  That's not the most eloquent way of expressing a belief, but it seems to be his way of saying: I was/am no better than anyone else.

He recently said in a....sermon of sorts: "We all came from the same dude, and I don't know what color he was."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyL1xha_1aU]Duck Commander Phil Robertson Talks About Why This Country Needs More Jesus - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm having a hard time understand the Right Wing Outrage.
> 
> A&E has made a business decision that they won't make money airing a dirty old bigot....
> 
> Aren't you guys normally all about big corporations making money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who among the people screeching about Robertson actually watches the show?
> 
> Hint:  Not many.
Click to expand...


Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?  

A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.  

You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm having a hard time understand the Right Wing Outrage.
> 
> A&E has made a business decision that they won't make money airing a dirty old bigot....
> 
> Aren't you guys normally all about big corporations making money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who among the people screeching about Robertson actually watches the show?
> 
> Hint:  Not many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?
> 
> A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.
> 
> You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.
Click to expand...


It's only offensive to you, simply because he's a Christian, Joe. You want the right to say whatever you want to say about him, his faith and his show, but you begrudge him the right to speak out about his beliefs. Hypocrite!


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who among the people screeching about Robertson actually watches the show?
> 
> Hint:  Not many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?
> 
> A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.
> 
> You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's only offensive to you, simply because he's a Christian, Joe. You want the right to say whatever you want to say about him, his faith and his show, but you begrudge him the right to speak out about his beliefs. Hypocrite!
Click to expand...


He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry. 

And A&E is perfectly free to fire him.  

But, no, comparing gays to terrorists and theives is REALLY offensive to most decent people.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Esmeralda said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously 60 pages is sad enough. But this is ridiculous. I hate to be crude but it seems to be the only way to call the trolls out. The purpose of sex is for procreation. That is it's function. That is normal. A guy dumping a load in another guy's ass is not. Like it or not that's reality. If you think it is then fine. But have the spine to say hey it ain't right but they have a right to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a troll, you fucking jackass, but you are an idiot.  You narrow minded, ignorant fools think there is only one way to see the world and that is your way. You've never opened or used your mind long enough to think about anything; never opened up and read a book long enough to learn anything outside your narrow little world.
> 
> Animals in the animal kingdom engage in same sex sexual activity.  Ten percent of the human population is and always has been homosexual.  How do you define normal?  It is a subjective term. You and your ilk do not have the finite definition of normal, fool.  You don't even realize that what you consider 'normal' or 'natural' is only what you consider it to be. You don't even realize that there are no absolutes, that the rest of the world does not have to adhere to your religious or personal perspective on what is right and what is wrong.  You are an idiot for not even being able to understand that there are other perspectives of reality than your own.
Click to expand...


I have raised animals of many kinds my entire life, what you ignorant deviants like to claim is "same sex" activities is nothing of the sort.  Both male and female animals exhibit dominance displays that the uninformed, or the agenda-driven misinterpret or misrepresent as sexual activity.  Generally, once dominance is established in a group of animals, mounting behavior decreases significantly.  I have never witnessed any normal male animal sexually penetrating anything other than a willing female.  Your weak-minded and misguided attempts to anthropomophize normal dominance displays and label them as equal to human sexual behavior is nothing more than a pile of PC bullshit.
OK, I'm ready for you to trot out the same old tired "studies" of animals held in abnormal conditions, animals that do exhibit abnormal sexual activity most likely resulting from deprivation of normalcy.


----------



## gallantwarrior

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm having a hard time understand the Right Wing Outrage.
> 
> A&E has made a business decision that they won't make money airing a dirty old bigot....
> 
> Aren't you guys normally all about big corporations making money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who among the people screeching about Robertson actually watches the show?
> 
> Hint:  Not many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?
> 
> A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.
> 
> You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.
Click to expand...


So you're offended?  Time to grow up and get over yourself.  If you find this offensive, change the channel.  It's not like there aren't plenty of trashy shows out there that would be less offensive to you.


----------



## gallantwarrior

TemplarKormac said:


>



Wow, that pretty much says what I've said all along.  The homosexual lobby (LGBT or whatever hell else they want to be called), demand what they would deny someone they don't agree with.


----------



## gallantwarrior

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?
> 
> A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.
> 
> You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only offensive to you, simply because he's a Christian, Joe. You want the right to say whatever you want to say about him, his faith and his show, but you begrudge him the right to speak out about his beliefs. Hypocrite!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.
> 
> And A&E is perfectly free to fire him.
> 
> But, no, comparing gays to terrorists and theives is REALLY offensive to most decent people.
Click to expand...


Tough.


----------



## mskafka

> He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.



1. Yes, he is.  I disagree that he's a bigot; what he is, is a churches of Christ Elder.  If one asks an Elder of the c of C a spiritual question, he's going to give you a blunt, non-sugarcoated answer.  I've heard worse from Elders; but not all of them are this harsh.

2. Whatever you believe-whether it be Agnosticism, Atheism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc...is none of my business.  I'm just wondering; is there no way that science and a supreme being can coexist?


----------



## mskafka

> "...what you ignorant deviants like to claim is "same sex" activities is nothing of the sort."



I must be sleepy.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  I haven't raised farm animals, so I have no idea; and probably would have avoided this subject.


----------



## Esmeralda

gallantwarrior said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously 60 pages is sad enough. But this is ridiculous. I hate to be crude but it seems to be the only way to call the trolls out. The purpose of sex is for procreation. That is it's function. That is normal. A guy dumping a load in another guy's ass is not. Like it or not that's reality. If you think it is then fine. But have the spine to say hey it ain't right but they have a right to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a troll, you fucking jackass, but you are an idiot.  You narrow minded, ignorant fools think there is only one way to see the world and that is your way. You've never opened or used your mind long enough to think about anything; never opened up and read a book long enough to learn anything outside your narrow little world.
> 
> Animals in the animal kingdom engage in same sex sexual activity.  Ten percent of the human population is and always has been homosexual.  How do you define normal?  It is a subjective term. You and your ilk do not have the finite definition of normal, fool.  You don't even realize that what you consider 'normal' or 'natural' is only what you consider it to be. You don't even realize that there are no absolutes, that the rest of the world does not have to adhere to your religious or personal perspective on what is right and what is wrong.  You are an idiot for not even being able to understand that there are other perspectives of reality than your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have raised animals of many kinds my entire life, what you ignorant deviants like to claim is "same sex" activities is nothing of the sort.  Both male and female animals exhibit dominance displays that the uninformed, or the agenda-driven misinterpret or misrepresent as sexual activity.  Generally, once dominance is established in a group of animals, mounting behavior decreases significantly.  I have never witnessed any normal male animal sexually penetrating anything other than a willing female.  Your weak-minded and misguided attempts to anthropomophize normal dominance displays and label them as equal to human sexual behavior is nothing more than a pile of PC bullshit.
> OK, I'm ready for you to trot out the same old tired "studies" of animals held in abnormal conditions, animals that do exhibit abnormal sexual activity most likely resulting from deprivation of normalcy.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant. Scientific, empirical evidence backs up the claim of same sex activities within the animal kingdom. As I said, you are ignorant.  Google it. Scientists have studied this.  It isn't me being weak minded; it is you being ignorant of science.  I don't need to cite any studies: this is considered common, general information--any educated person would be knowledgeable about it.  Your personal anecdotal knowledge has no value.

Even if it wasn't normal in the animal kingdom to engage in same sex activities, you still cannot assume to determine what is normal or natural for humans; these are SUBJECTIVE terms, which cannot be definitively determined.  If sex is only for procreation, for example, then why are most of the people engaging in sexual activity mostly not doing it for the purpose of procreation?  If sex is only for procreation, then men would not want to have anal sex with women.  If sex is only or procreatiom, then all women in and past menopause would not be having sex.  Simple minds embrace simple ideas: one simple idea is thinking you know what is natural and normal for the whole of humanity.


----------



## JoeB131

gallantwarrior said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who among the people screeching about Robertson actually watches the show?
> 
> Hint:  Not many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?
> 
> A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.
> 
> You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're offended?  Time to grow up and get over yourself.  If you find this offensive, change the channel.  It's not like there aren't plenty of trashy shows out there that would be less offensive to you.
Click to expand...


Guy, I work three jobs, I don't have time to watch TV.  And I probably need to cut down on the time I waste here.   

But that wasn't the point I was making to Cave-man.  

The point is, Robertson made comments that were offensive to most decent people, and used the bible to justify them.  

A&E decided they didn't want to get involved in that shit.  They were just making a fun series about rednecks who hunt ducks.


----------



## JoeB131

mskafka said:


> He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yes, he is.  I disagree that he's a bigot; what he is, is a churches of Christ Elder.  If one asks an Elder of the c of C a spiritual question, he's going to give you a blunt, non-sugarcoated answer.  I've heard worse from Elders; but not all of them are this harsh.
> 
> 2. Whatever you believe-whether it be Agnosticism, Atheism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc...is none of my business.  I'm just wondering; is no way that science and a supreme being can coexist?
Click to expand...


I am kind of agnostic on the whole issue of a "Supreme Being". I do have those moments where I think the universe is too well organized to be just random chance.  

However, I would hate to think that the universe is so badly designed that the petty, nasty, cruel vindictive God of the Bible is really the Supreme Being.   That would be kind of depressing, because when you get right down to it, that guy is kind of a dick and there's very little to redeem him even in his own book.  

The bible has been used for centuries to justify war, genocide, slavery, misogyny, racism, witch burnings- all things that all THINKING people conclude are wrong now.  

But man, the homophobes will cling to those verses on Homosexuality, because, Gosh darn, they think the ghey sex is icky.  At least when dudes do it, anyway.  Most of them like them some Girl on Girl porn.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Esmeralda said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a troll, you fucking jackass, but you are an idiot.  You narrow minded, ignorant fools think there is only one way to see the world and that is your way. You've never opened or used your mind long enough to think about anything; never opened up and read a book long enough to learn anything outside your narrow little world.
> 
> Animals in the animal kingdom engage in same sex sexual activity.  Ten percent of the human population is and always has been homosexual.  How do you define normal?  It is a subjective term. You and your ilk do not have the finite definition of normal, fool.  You don't even realize that what you consider 'normal' or 'natural' is only what you consider it to be. You don't even realize that there are no absolutes, that the rest of the world does not have to adhere to your religious or personal perspective on what is right and what is wrong.  You are an idiot for not even being able to understand that there are other perspectives of reality than your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have raised animals of many kinds my entire life, what you ignorant deviants like to claim is "same sex" activities is nothing of the sort.  Both male and female animals exhibit dominance displays that the uninformed, or the agenda-driven misinterpret or misrepresent as sexual activity.  Generally, once dominance is established in a group of animals, mounting behavior decreases significantly.  I have never witnessed any normal male animal sexually penetrating anything other than a willing female.  Your weak-minded and misguided attempts to anthropomophize normal dominance displays and label them as equal to human sexual behavior is nothing more than a pile of PC bullshit.
> OK, I'm ready for you to trot out the same old tired "studies" of animals held in abnormal conditions, animals that do exhibit abnormal sexual activity most likely resulting from deprivation of normalcy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ignorant. Scientific, empirical evidence backs up the claim of same sex activities within the animal kingdom. As I said, you are ignorant.  Google it. Scientists have studied this.  It isn't me being weak minded; it is you being ignorant of science.  I don't need to cite any studies: this is considered common, general information--any educated person would be knowledgeable about it.  Your personal anecdotal knowledge has no value.
Click to expand...


the only same sex activity that i have seen out of farm animal is about dominance 

on the other hand i have seen a dog dry hump another male dog 

a cat and a dudes leg 

so following your line of thinking we should accept   beastiality

because of the dogs behavior 

better yet i have seen a rooster chicken hump a dead chicken 


are we to accept folks having sexual relations with the dead 

because of that roosters high t level


----------



## mskafka

> I am kind of agnostic on the whole issue of a "Supreme Being". I do have those moments where I think the universe is too well organized to be just random chance.



That's reasonable.

Any religious text, is dangerous in the hands of the ignorant, or those with sinister motives.  

Phil is just homespun, and set in his ways; he isn't trying to start WWIII.  
Is there a "war on Christianity"?  I don't think so.  I believe this article, and the ones who parroted it, are waging a war on American Unity.


----------



## JOSweetHeart

strollingbones said:


> 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much - latimes.com
> 
> seems phil was out to bitch slap a & e


To me, if they couldn't take what they considered to be a flaw of his, they never should have hooked up with him in the first place. They should have known that it was like getting married. When you say, "I do." , you are saying "I do." to everything that comes with the person that you are getting married to.   

By the way, I love what you say in your signature here.   



TemplarKormac said:


>


*Yeah!!!*   

God bless you two and Mr. Robertson always!!!   

Holly


----------



## gallantwarrior

Esmeralda said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a troll, you fucking jackass, but you are an idiot.  You narrow minded, ignorant fools think there is only one way to see the world and that is your way. You've never opened or used your mind long enough to think about anything; never opened up and read a book long enough to learn anything outside your narrow little world.
> 
> Animals in the animal kingdom engage in same sex sexual activity.  Ten percent of the human population is and always has been homosexual.  How do you define normal?  It is a subjective term. You and your ilk do not have the finite definition of normal, fool.  You don't even realize that what you consider 'normal' or 'natural' is only what you consider it to be. You don't even realize that there are no absolutes, that the rest of the world does not have to adhere to your religious or personal perspective on what is right and what is wrong.  You are an idiot for not even being able to understand that there are other perspectives of reality than your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have raised animals of many kinds my entire life, what you ignorant deviants like to claim is "same sex" activities is nothing of the sort.  Both male and female animals exhibit dominance displays that the uninformed, or the agenda-driven misinterpret or misrepresent as sexual activity.  Generally, once dominance is established in a group of animals, mounting behavior decreases significantly.  I have never witnessed any normal male animal sexually penetrating anything other than a willing female.  Your weak-minded and misguided attempts to anthropomophize normal dominance displays and label them as equal to human sexual behavior is nothing more than a pile of PC bullshit.
> OK, I'm ready for you to trot out the same old tired "studies" of animals held in abnormal conditions, animals that do exhibit abnormal sexual activity most likely resulting from deprivation of normalcy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ignorant. Scientific, empirical evidence backs up the claim of same sex activities within the animal kingdom. As I said, you are ignorant.  Google it. Scientists have studied this.  It isn't me being weak minded; it is you being ignorant of science.  I don't need to cite any studies: this is considered common, general information--any educated person would be knowledgeable about it.  Your personal anecdotal knowledge has no value.
> 
> Even if it wasn't normal in the animal kingdom to engage in same sex activities, you still cannot assume to determine what is normal or natural for humans; these are SUBJECTIVE terms, which cannot be definitively determined.  If sex is only for procreation, for example, then why are most of the people engaging in sexual activity mostly not doing it for the purpose of procreation?  If sex is only for procreation, then men would not want to have anal sex with women.  If sex is only or procreatiom, then all women in and past menopause would not be having sex.  Simple minds embrace simple ideas: one simple idea is thinking you know what is natural and normal for the whole of humanity.
Click to expand...


OK.  I'm going to type very slowly so maybe you can follow this...
1.  What you label as "anecdotal knowledge" is based on lifelong, daily observation.  There are no artificial 'study' parameters.  I have studied both biology and psychology and do have more than a typical layman's understanding of the processes of reproduction.  I will qualify that no animals I have ever observed engaged in unnatural "same sex" activities, specifically sexual intercourse/penetration of an animalmofmthe same gender.

2.  I have made my opinion about human sexuality known several times, perhaps you missed this.  Human beings link the physical act with emotional connections with other humans.  Therefore, having sex with someone you love is considered an ultimate expression of that love.  I do believe humans capable of emotionally "loving" other people of many dissimilar types.  If a man (or woman) develops a deep emotional attachment to someone of the same gender, it is not outside human capability to choose to express that emotional love in physical, sexual terms.  If viewed from that perspective, you might argue that "same sex" activities are _natural_ human behavior.  Humans are also capablemofmusing sex to express less noble emotions, as well, such as anger, rage, hate, control.  Humans use sex as a weapon and a tool, a punishment or a reward, as the situation warrants.


----------



## gallantwarrior

JoeB131 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?
> 
> A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.
> 
> You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're offended?  Time to grow up and get over yourself.  If you find this offensive, change the channel.  It's not like there aren't plenty of trashy shows out there that would be less offensive to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, I work three jobs, I don't have time to watch TV.  And I probably need to cut down on the time I waste here.
> 
> But that wasn't the point I was making to Cave-man.
> 
> The point is, Robertson made comments that were offensive to most decent people, and used the bible to justify them.
> 
> A&E decided they didn't want to get involved in that shit.  They were just making a fun series about rednecks who hunt ducks.
Click to expand...


Like you, I work three jobs, watch almost no TV, and spend too much time here sometimes.  I don't disagree that A&E is fully within their rights to change their programming as they see fit and suffer any financial losses this decision might incur.  Robertson has as much right as anybody else to express his opinions, and to suffer any consequences of that expression.  My biggest gripe is with the butthurt people who demand that any opinion they find offensive be silenced.  I don't necessarily agree with, or like everything I hear and read, but I "change the channel" and move on.


----------



## Esmeralda

> OK. I'm going to type very slowly so maybe you can follow this...
> 1. What you label as "anecdotal knowledge" is based on lifelong, daily observation. There are no artificial 'study' parameters. I have studied both biology and psychology and do have more than a typical layman's understanding of the processes of reproduction. I will qualify that no animals I have ever observed engaged in unnatural "same sex" activities, specifically sexual intercourse/penetration of an animalmofmthe same gender.


 This IS anecdotal information.  It is NOT scientific study.



> I have made my opinion about human sexuality known several times, perhaps you missed this. Human beings link the physical act with emotional connections with other humans. Therefore, having sex with someone you love is considered an ultimate expression of that love. I do believe humans capable of emotionally "loving" other people of many dissimilar types. If a man (or woman) develops a deep emotional attachment to someone of the same gender, it is not outside human capability to choose to express that emotional love in physical, sexual terms. If viewed from that perspective, you might argue that "same sex" activities are natural human behavior. Humans are also sex to express less noble emotions, as well, such as anger, rage, hate, control. Human use sex as a weapon and a tool, a punishment or a reward, as the situation warrants.



The point is that what you believe is what you believe, your PERSONAL beliefs.  You are not in a position to define for the rest of humanity what human sexuality means, is, should be, etc. It is just your personal perspective. That was the point of the original post of mine to which you responded. 

So we are back full circle. It's just your opionion.  No one can say definitively what is normal or not normal, natural or unnatural.  A society as a whole can determine what they find acceptable and create social mores and taboos.  Our society, as a whole, nowadays accepts homosexuality as a lifestyle.  A minority doesn't. That's your problem.  

If the employers of this man want to fire him for his statements, they've every right to do so.  He can go to court if he wants to, but will most likely not be vindicated.  
__________________


----------



## thanatos144

The homosexual  lobby wants to be normal so bad they strike out and try to destroy anybody who says otherwise

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> The homosexual  lobby wants to be normal so bad they strike out and try to destroy anybody who says otherwise
> 
> tapatalk post



How do you define "normal". 

Lady I worked for a few years ago was the most driven, professional person I ever met. And one of the few supervisors who ever really gave me a fair shake.   

And she was gay.  

And I know straight people who are such complete screwups they need a spouse to keep them in line.  

That has nothing to do with Phil Robertson, a guy who expresses his bigotry and uses the bible to rationalize it.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homosexual  lobby wants to be normal so bad they strike out and try to destroy anybody who says otherwise
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you define "normal".
> 
> Lady I worked for a few years ago was the most driven, professional person I ever met. And one of the few supervisors who ever really gave me a fair shake.
> 
> And she was gay.
> 
> And I know straight people who are such complete screwups they need a spouse to keep them in line.
> 
> That has nothing to do with Phil Robertson, a guy who expresses his bigotry and uses the bible to rationalize it.
Click to expand...


Define normal as the majority of people do see the majority people do not f*** each other up the ass

tapatalk post


----------



## Avatar4321

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> .... and?
> 
> 
> 
> And nothing.  Robertson is getting crucified for his alleged homophobia.
> 
> Maher gets a free pass for his.
> 
> It doesn't matter what is said.  All that matters is who's saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting fired is a "pass"?  Did you read my post?
> 
> Again... morals clause.  Standard procedure when you sign up to be a "reality" show actor.
Click to expand...


And again the standard morals clause doesnt get invoked because someone _advocates_ being moral.

Or are you seriously suggesting quoting the Bible is immoral.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Esmeralda said:


> OK. I'm going to type very slowly so maybe you can follow this...
> 1. What you label as "anecdotal knowledge" is based on lifelong, daily observation. There are no artificial 'study' parameters. I have studied both biology and psychology and do have more than a typical layman's understanding of the processes of reproduction. I will qualify that no animals I have ever observed engaged in unnatural "same sex" activities, specifically sexual intercourse/penetration of an animalmofmthe same gender.
> 
> 
> 
> This IS anecdotal information.  It is NOT scientific study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have made my opinion about human sexuality known several times, perhaps you missed this. Human beings link the physical act with emotional connections with other humans. Therefore, having sex with someone you love is considered an ultimate expression of that love. I do believe humans capable of emotionally "loving" other people of many dissimilar types. If a man (or woman) develops a deep emotional attachment to someone of the same gender, it is not outside human capability to choose to express that emotional love in physical, sexual terms. If viewed from that perspective, you might argue that "same sex" activities are natural human behavior. Humans are also sex to express less noble emotions, as well, such as anger, rage, hate, control. Human use sex as a weapon and a tool, a punishment or a reward, as the situation warrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that what you believe is what you believe, your PERSONAL beliefs.  You are not in a position to define for the rest of humanity what human sexuality means, is, should be, etc. It is just your personal perspective. That was the point of the original post of mine to which you responded.
> 
> So we are back full circle. It's just your opionion.  No one can say definitively what is normal or not normal, natural or unnatural.  A society as a whole can determine what they find acceptable and create social mores and taboos.  Our society, as a whole, nowadays accepts homosexuality as a lifestyle.  A minority doesn't. That's your problem.
> 
> If the employers of this man want to fire him for his statements, they've every right to do so.  He can go to court if he wants to, but will most likely not be vindicated.
> __________________
Click to expand...


Interesting thing about your treasured "scientific studies". They still have nothing more than conjecture and theories about what makes someone homosexual.  I.e. no hard scientific facts but a whole bunch of opinions and belief.  Oh, and I just explained to you that I do, indeed see homosexuality as a lifestyle and accept it as a lifestyle choice based on my own terms.  I do have a problem with someone who has chosen this lifestyle demanding that all and sundry accept their choice, even as they would force that acceptance.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And nothing.  Robertson is getting crucified for his alleged homophobia.
> 
> Maher gets a free pass for his.
> 
> It doesn't matter what is said.  All that matters is who's saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting fired is a "pass"?  Did you read my post?
> 
> Again... morals clause.  Standard procedure when you sign up to be a "reality" show actor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again the standard morals clause doesnt get invoked because someone _advocates_ being moral.
> 
> Or are you seriously suggesting quoting the Bible is immoral.
Click to expand...

not all of it, just most of it...


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm having a hard time understand the Right Wing Outrage.
> 
> A&E has made a business decision that they won't make money airing a dirty old bigot....
> 
> Aren't you guys normally all about big corporations making money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who among the people screeching about Robertson actually watches the show?
> 
> Hint:  Not many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?
> 
> A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.
> 
> You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.
Click to expand...


So the double standard is okay for the left, but not the right?


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?
> 
> A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.
> 
> You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only offensive to you, simply because he's a Christian, Joe. You want the right to say whatever you want to say about him, his faith and his show, but you begrudge him the right to speak out about his beliefs. Hypocrite!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.
> 
> And A&E is perfectly free to fire him.
> 
> But, no, comparing gays to terrorists and theives is REALLY offensive to most decent people.
Click to expand...


And you have the right to be a narrow minded bigot and lack reading comprehension or understanding. He did not compare them, he simply stated who would not inherit God's kingdom.


----------



## daws101

Papageorgio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only offensive to you, simply because he's a Christian, Joe. You want the right to say whatever you want to say about him, his faith and his show, but you begrudge him the right to speak out about his beliefs. Hypocrite!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.
> 
> And A&E is perfectly free to fire him.
> 
> But, no, comparing gays to terrorists and theives is REALLY offensive to most decent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have the right to be a narrow minded bigot and lack reading comprehension or understanding. He did not compare them, he simply stated who would not inherit God's kingdom.
Click to expand...

you mean the imaginary one?


----------



## Papageorgio

daws101 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.
> 
> And A&E is perfectly free to fire him.
> 
> But, no, comparing gays to terrorists and theives is REALLY offensive to most decent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have the right to be a narrow minded bigot and lack reading comprehension or understanding. He did not compare them, he simply stated who would not inherit God's kingdom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean the imaginary one?
Click to expand...


If that is your opinion and you and everyone else is entitled to their own opinions.


----------



## thanatos144

I saw on the today shoe some woman said he also said things about civil rights.... I did see anything about civil rights in that interview that asked for the tone this woman had. The media are gathering up to destroy more godly Christian men 

tapatalk post


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?
> 
> A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.
> 
> You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only offensive to you, simply because he's a Christian, Joe. You want the right to say whatever you want to say about him, his faith and his show, but you begrudge him the right to speak out about his beliefs. Hypocrite!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.
> 
> And A&E is perfectly free to fire him.
> 
> But, no, comparing gays to terrorists and theives is REALLY offensive to most decent people.
Click to expand...


Just like you had a right to be fired because your company did not have a favorable opinion of your work and lack of contribution to the company.


----------



## rightwinger

Robertson was Ok while he talked about his religious objections to homosexuality. Nobody would have cared. But he couldn't stop at that when he got into...

What's the deal with gays? why do they fuck each other up the ass when they could be fucking pussy?

homosexuality is a sin....just like bestiality

Blacks were perfectly happy with Jim Crow. It was the outsiders who riled them up

Phil is a redneck racist who hates gays with all his heart. A&E decided he was not the type of person they wanted to represent them


----------



## daws101

Papageorgio said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have the right to be a narrow minded bigot and lack reading comprehension or understanding. He did not compare them, he simply stated who would not inherit God's kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the imaginary one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is your opinion and you and everyone else is entitled to their own opinions.
Click to expand...

so you're not disagreeing it's imaginary then?


----------



## PredFan

Pogo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocrite, thy name is Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shot that one down hours ago.  Nice try.  It's got problems.  Lots of 'em.
Click to expand...


I seriously doubt you did. YOU probably think you did but knowing you, you didn't.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Robertson was Ok while he talked about his religious objections to homosexuality. Nobody would have cared. But he couldn't stop at that when he got into...
> 
> What's the deal with gays? why do they fuck each other up the ass when they could be fucking pussy?
> 
> homosexuality is a sin....just like bestiality
> 
> Blacks were perfectly happy with Jim Crow. It was the outsiders who riled them up
> 
> Phil is a redneck racist who hates gays with all his heart. A&E decided he was not the type of person they wanted to represent them


You repeat your programming well, parrot.


----------



## PredFan

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocrite, thy name is Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shot that one down hours ago.  Nice try.  It's got problems.  Lots of 'em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it got shot down, you just can't explain liberal hypocrisy. Nice try.
Click to expand...


Yeah I thought so.


----------



## PredFan

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shot that one down hours ago.  Nice try.  It's got problems.  Lots of 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it got shot down, you just can't explain liberal hypocrisy. Nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, I know I shot it down.  Would you like to get embarrassed again?
> 
> Roll tape....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word is "gays" as in "more than one".  I'm assuming that the one that was beheaded is not the one that was burned alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case Ron Burgundy's blanket "liberals" doesn't apply to either one.  And to the extent that the Iranian side does exist it's yet another warning sign of what theocrazy produces.  I don't know about Iran but the Inquisition burned a lot of people alive.  And they didn't even have to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How's the labelmaker holding up?  It's been getting a lot of use today....
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Different argument from what I posted but you didn't shoot this one down either.


----------



## Papageorgio

daws101 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the imaginary one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your opinion and you and everyone else is entitled to their own opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you're not disagreeing it's imaginary then?
Click to expand...


What I think is not the issue, the issue whether one has a right to an opinion and you and I have a right to express or not. When you work in align profile job and the company you work for has no balls, you can expect to get fired.


----------



## PredFan

Here is what is going to happen:

The next season of the show is already in the can. It was finished before this happened. A&E will run it. They will not start shooting the next season until 4-5 months from now. Before that time, A&E will make some sort of announcement that they are "satisfied" that he has been punished enough and then they will resume the show on schedule.

Dont doubt me.


----------



## thanatos144

PredFan said:


> Here is what is going to happen:
> 
> The next season of the show is already in the can. It was finished before this happened. A&E will run it. They will not start shooting the next season until 4-5 months from now. Before that time, A&E will make some sort of announcement that they are "satisfied" that he has been punished enough and then they will resume the show on schedule.
> 
> Dont doubt me.



At which time the family should tell them they're not going to shoot a show no more

tapatalk post


----------



## Papageorgio

PredFan said:


> Here is what is going to happen:
> 
> The next season of the show is already in the can. It was finished before this happened. A&E will run it. They will not start shooting the next season until 4-5 months from now. Before that time, A&E will make some sort of announcement that they are "satisfied" that he has been punished enough and then they will resume the show on schedule.
> 
> Dont doubt me.



Or like the Bounty Hunter, they will go to another network.


----------



## Pogo

PredFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it got shot down, you just can't explain liberal hypocrisy. Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, I know I shot it down.  Would you like to get embarrassed again?
> 
> Roll tape....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case Ron Burgundy's blanket "liberals" doesn't apply to either one.  And to the extent that the Iranian side does exist it's yet another warning sign of what theocrazy produces.  I don't know about Iran but the Inquisition burned a lot of people alive.  And they didn't even have to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How's the labelmaker holding up?  It's been getting a lot of use today....
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Different argument from what I posted but you didn't shoot this one down either.
Click to expand...


None of those were your posts dood.

And your last post, I agree.


----------



## thanatos144

It is time to Christians stand  up to the secular fascists

tapatalk post


----------



## Pogo

Avatar4321 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And nothing.  Robertson is getting crucified for his alleged homophobia.
> 
> Maher gets a free pass for his.
> 
> It doesn't matter what is said.  All that matters is who's saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting fired is a "pass"?  Did you read my post?
> 
> Again... morals clause.  Standard procedure when you sign up to be a "reality" show actor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again the standard morals clause doesnt get invoked because someone _advocates_ being moral.
> 
> Or are you seriously suggesting quoting the Bible is immoral.
Click to expand...


What exactly are you doing here --- posting just to see your name on the internets? Is that it?

How many times do we have to post this before you actually read it?
THIS is what "morals clause" means:

A typical "morals clause":


Pogo said:


> >> If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, *Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general*, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<
> 
> Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed.  See paragraph 13 on page 15.  See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.



That sample contract is for a similar TV show, "Basketball Wives". 

*READ IT* this time and stop playing stupid.


----------



## daws101

Papageorgio said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your opinion and you and everyone else is entitled to their own opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> so you're not disagreeing it's imaginary then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I think is not the issue, the issue whether one has a right to an opinion and you and I have a right to express or not. When you work in align profile job and the company you work for has no balls, you can expect to get fired.
Click to expand...

 a&e has plenty of balls they chose not to support a single Ideology...for an entertainment company to do that over making money takes some brass ones.
besides he got to voice his opinion, now he must deal with the consequences .


----------



## Papageorgio

daws101 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're not disagreeing it's imaginary then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I think is not the issue, the issue whether one has a right to an opinion and you and I have a right to express or not. When you work in align profile job and the company you work for has no balls, you can expect to get fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a&e has plenty of balls they chose not to support a single Ideology...for an entertainment company to do that over making money takes some brass ones.
> besides he got to voice his opinion, now he must deal with the consequences .
Click to expand...


No they don't, MSNBC didn't either. They should keep them and let the people decide. ABC Disney plays it safe. I respect their right to fire, but I think the firing Maher, Imus, Bashir, Dog and now this guy, are bad decisions and is gutless, but that is just my opinion and your opinion is different. Fine by me.


----------



## PredFan

Papageorgio said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what is going to happen:
> 
> The next season of the show is already in the can. It was finished before this happened. A&E will run it. They will not start shooting the next season until 4-5 months from now. Before that time, A&E will make some sort of announcement that they are "satisfied" that he has been punished enough and then they will resume the show on schedule.
> 
> Dont doubt me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or like the Bounty Hunter, they will go to another network.
Click to expand...


I'd be really surprised if A&E is that stupid.


----------



## PredFan

Pogo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, I know I shot it down.  Would you like to get embarrassed again?
> 
> Roll tape....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's the labelmaker holding up?  It's been getting a lot of use today....
> 
> Fucking hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different argument from what I posted but you didn't shoot this one down either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of those were your posts dood.
> 
> And your last post, I agree.
Click to expand...


But you used them to back up your response to me.


----------



## Gracie

Watch this. I dare you to watch it. Then maybe some will get what I have been trying to say, and why so many people back Phil up.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjqccYmx13w#t=247]I am Second® - The Robertsons - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mskafka

Propaganda is an amazing form of manipulation.

Maybe we should try counterpropaganda: 

1. There are at least 3 known groups, who claim to be victims.  Try vetting some of these "reporters" of this interview, and find out their possible motives.  Does he/she have a personal interest in the plight of the victims, or does the fear of being "laid off" motivate sensational journalism?  It's a tough economy, and people are desperate.  
2. If we allow things like this to divide us, we will not survive as a nation.
3. Who do you (any of you) think these left-wing, and right-wing people are?  I'm curious about the subjectivity and consistency of the definition (not out of a dictionary) of a liberal or conservative.  

Namaste


----------



## Spoonman

Sounds like the network is taking a lot more heat than robertson


----------



## Iceman

TemplarKormac said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um yeah, like you were doing in the Nelson Mandela threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was he calling Mandela a socialist who hated the USA? Because thats truth. Or was he saying that he was messiah like? Because thats not the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. If he believed Mendela anything contrary to your assertion, he is automatically wrong. Really? That statement epitomizes everything I pointed out about political parties.
> 
> *Now, what did Mandela do that made him a Communist/Socialist?* Katz never could answer that question, nor could bigreb or deltex. What about his policies made him anything of the sort? Is he a messiah? No, he is a man. Did he fight for the cause of freedom and equality? Yes he did. Regardless of what you think, he was a liberator, a freedom fighter.
Click to expand...

He was a confirmed member of the South African Communist Party.
SACP confirms Nelson Mandela was a member | Politics | BDlive
Doofus...


----------



## HenryBHough

If anyone needed proof they should have been satisfied when Comrade Obama rushed to the celebration.


----------



## Pogo

PredFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different argument from what I posted but you didn't shoot this one down either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those were your posts dood.
> 
> And your last post, I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you used them to back up your response to me.
Click to expand...


I see what you're saying now.  Had to search back. 

That's because the image you attached a ways back had already been linked even earlier by somebody else (same image), so we took it apart _then._


----------



## hunarcy

daws101 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with conservatives and their comprehensive ignorance of fundamental Constitutional principles.
> 
> This is not a free speech issue; private citizens advocating for a boycott of a given private entity absent government involvement in no way violates free speech. Only government can place restrictions on speech where appropriate and in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  It is a Free Speech issue.  It's NOT a First Amendment issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> incorrect! Roberson was not prevented from speaking his mind, G.Q. was not forced to edit, redact. or in any way change the interview..this  nontroversy will help sell more issues...
> it's been said before seems it needs to be said again, free speech has consequences and responsibilities....
Click to expand...


If GLAAD had not launched a jihad by announcing they were "researching" Robertson's activities to contact all who have sponsored him, you'd have a point.  However, they did, so  you're wrong.


----------



## Iceman

It is interesting how liberals are now free market libertarians when it comes to allowing a corporation to fire or suspend it's workers for stating their religious/moral or political views.

So I will pose a scenario to them. Let's say there was an employee for a major corporation, like Dow Chemical. This individual happened to be an Atheist. He goes on facebook(outside his work environment mind you), and criticizes Christmas, saying God is not real and Jesus is a myth. Dow Chemical finds out and fires him. Are you saying Dow Chemical has the right to fire someone for criticizing a religion?


----------



## Pogo

Does Dow Chemical require its workers to sign a morals clause?  Is it in the business of selling illusions?

I think not.

And btw employers have _always_ had the right to hire and fire according to their needs.


----------



## Pogo

hunarcy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with conservatives and their comprehensive ignorance of fundamental Constitutional principles.
> 
> This is not a free speech issue; private citizens advocating for a boycott of a given private entity absent government involvement in no way violates free speech. Only government can place restrictions on speech where appropriate and in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  It is a Free Speech issue.  It's NOT a First Amendment issue.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.
When you sign up for a TV show, you do so by their rules.  You break those rules, they can fire you.  He's free to speak anything he wants; what he's not free to do is have a job in violation of his contract.


----------



## Iceman

Pogo said:


> Does Dow Chemical require its workers to sign a morals clause?  Is it in the business of selling illusions?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> And btw employers have _always_ had the right to hire and fire according to their needs.



No, no morals clause. in my scenario. So would Dow Chemical have the right to fire him?

Are you saying if there wasn't a morals clause they shouldn't have been allowed to indefinitely suspend this duck dynasty guy?


----------



## Pogo

Iceman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Dow Chemical require its workers to sign a morals clause?  Is it in the business of selling illusions?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> And btw employers have _always_ had the right to hire and fire according to their needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no morals clause. in my scenario. So would Dow Chemical have the right to fire him?
> 
> Are you saying if there wasn't a morals clause they shouldn't have been allowed to indefinitely suspend this duck dynasty guy?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure; I'm not a lawyer.  In the Robertson case the presumed morality clause clearly gives the Producer unlimited leeway to control his speech and actions.  Without that -- not sure.

The EECO site sez:
>> Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws

I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;

Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;

Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and

the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. *It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation*. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. The CSRA also prohibits reprisal against federal employees or applicants for whistle-blowing, or for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right. The CSRA is enforced by both the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). <<  (source here)

It looks to me that the bolded part above would protect the Dow Chemical guy in his case, but not Robertson, based on the fact that the Dow guy's action doesn't affect his employer, while Robertson's does.


----------



## Iceman

You couldn't say for sure. Perhaps the employee held an account with a Christian client, losing them money and an account. Hell, if anything, sticking with Duck Dynasty after this would increase A&E's profits. Loss prevention cannot be the motive here, so you are saying it is ok to fire someone for their beliefs only if they cost you money?

Also, back to the morality clause. The gay lobby, and those of you here who support A&E, didn't support firing him because of him violating the morality clause. You support A&E because you believe he should be punished for his views, and found the morality clause after the fact.

Your position has been until now, that if an individual has offensive views, a company has the right to fire said individual.


----------



## Iceman

So ideally, you should support the right of Dow Chemical firing the individual I mentioned in the scenario.


----------



## Pogo

Iceman said:


> You couldn't say for sure. Perhaps the employee held an account with a Christian client, losing them money and an account. Hell, if anything, sticking with Duck Dynasty after this would increase A&E's profits. Loss prevention cannot be the motive here, so you are saying it is ok to fire someone for their beliefs only if they cost you money?
> 
> Also, back to the morality clause. The gay lobby, and those of you here who support A&E, didn't support firing him because of him violating the morality clause. You support A&E because you believe he should be punished for his views, and found the morality clause after the fact.



You don't *EVER* presume to tell me what I think, asswipe.


----------



## Pogo

Iceman said:


> So ideally, you should support the right of Dow Chemical firing the individual I mentioned in the scenario.



Wrong.  Learn how to read.


----------



## Iceman

So you want him fired because he violated the morality clause? How could you of even known about this morality clause, we didn't know about this until after the duck dynasty guy were indefinitely suspended. So unless you worked at A&E as their lawyer, how could you even know about it?

So I am mistaken that the liberals' position here is that a private corporation has the right to fire an employee for offensive views? What is your position then?


----------



## Iceman

Pogo said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So ideally, you should support the right of Dow Chemical firing the individual I mentioned in the scenario.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Learn how to read.
Click to expand...


So then you don't think corporations should not have the right to fire individuals for their views?

So you oppose the duck dynasty guy getting fired?


----------



## Pogo

Iceman said:


> So you want him fired because he violated the morality clause? How could you of even known about this morality clause, we didn't know about this until after the duck dynasty guy were indefinitely suspended. So unless you worked at A&E as their lawyer, how could you even know about it?



Number one turdbreath, I've never said I 'want' anything.  I and many others have simply explained how it works.  I don't have a duck in this race; I don't watch either the show OR the channel.  And number two, how would I know about it?  Maybe because I worked in broadcasting for 25 years as well as on talent contracts, and it's a standard contract clause.  And because it's come up before many times.

Now take your moronic self-righteous presumptuous narcissistic troll orgasm and cram it up your ass.


----------



## Iceman

Pogo said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want him fired because he violated the morality clause? How could you of even known about this morality clause, we didn't know about this until after the duck dynasty guy were indefinitely suspended. So unless you worked at A&E as their lawyer, how could you even know about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number one turdbreath, I've never said I 'want' anything.  I and many others have explained how it works.  And number two, how would I know about it?  Maybe because I worked in broadcasting for 25 years as well as on talent contracts, and it's a standard contract clause.  And because it's come up before many times.
> 
> Now take your moronic self-righteous presumptuous narcissist troll orgasm and cram it up your ass.
Click to expand...


So you think he should be fired for violating the morality clause, not because of his views on homosexuality?

Why are you so angry about a clause in a contract? Why does that get you so fired up?

I can't say I have heard anyone from your point of view on this subject. Glaad and the liberals I have heard on the net are angry with his views on homosexuality, and think he should be fired for them. They just used the morality clause to justify their position further. They didn't think in of itself violating the morality clause is bad.


----------



## Politico

Esmeralda said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously 60 pages is sad enough. But this is ridiculous. I hate to be crude but it seems to be the only way to call the trolls out. The purpose of sex is for procreation. That is it's function. That is normal. A guy dumping a load in another guy's ass is not. Like it or not that's reality. If you think it is then fine. But have the spine to say hey it ain't right but they have a right to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a troll, you fucking jackass, but you are an idiot.  You narrow minded, ignorant fools think there is only one way to see the world and that is your way. You've never opened or used your mind long enough to think about anything; never opened up and read a book long enough to learn anything outside your narrow little world.
> 
> Animals in the animal kingdom engage in same sex sexual activity.  Ten percent of the human population is and always has been homosexual.  How do you define normal?  It is a subjective term. You and your ilk do not have the finite definition of normal, fool.  You don't even realize that what you consider 'normal' or 'natural' is only what you consider it to be. You don't even realize that there are no absolutes, that the rest of the world does not have to adhere to your religious or personal perspective on what is right and what is wrong.  You are an idiot for not even being able to understand that there are other perspectives of reality than your own.
Click to expand...


I don't have a religious perspective derp. Wasted drivel.


----------



## JoeB131

Iceman said:


> It is interesting how liberals are now free market libertarians when it comes to allowing a corporation to fire or suspend it's workers for stating their religious/moral or political views.
> 
> So I will pose a scenario to them. Let's say there was an employee for a major corporation, like Dow Chemical. This individual happened to be an Atheist. He goes on facebook(outside his work environment mind you), and criticizes Christmas, saying God is not real and Jesus is a myth. Dow Chemical finds out and fires him. Are you saying Dow Chemical has the right to fire someone for criticizing a religion?



I think it would depend on how he was presenting himself and how public that was. 

It would quite another thing if he presented that viewpoint on LinkedIn, which is a professional website, opposed to Facebook, which isn't.   If she presented herself as "I'm an Employee of Dow Chemical and I think Jesus sucks," she probably would be in violation of company policies. 

But at my current job, a lady was fired because she posted a resume on Craig's List and said that "The company was bought out and she didn't feel comfortable there", and she was promptly fired for it.  

Now, personally, I think that this is what happens when you have "right to work", non-union, "At-Will" employment, where workers have no rights, you should expect this sort of ass-hattery.


----------



## thanatos144

How do you break a morality clause by being moral?  

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> How do you break a morality clause by being moral?
> 
> tapatalk post



Hating people isn't moral.


----------



## ItsOnlyMe

JoeB131 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?
> 
> A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either.  The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.
> 
> You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're offended?  Time to grow up and get over yourself.  If you find this offensive, change the channel.  It's not like there aren't plenty of trashy shows out there that would be less offensive to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, I work three jobs, I don't have time to watch TV.  And I probably need to cut down on the time I waste here.
> 
> But that wasn't the point I was making to Cave-man.
> 
> The point is, Robertson made comments that were offensive to most decent people, and used the bible to justify them.
> 
> A&E decided they didn't want to get involved in that shit.  They were just making a fun series about rednecks who hunt ducks.
Click to expand...


Oh so anybody who hunts ducks is a "redneck" -  now THAT is offensive. For your information, the family's business is duck calls and other duck-hunting things duck hunters buy from them.  People of all education levels hunt, ducks and otherwise.  What in God's name they even aligned themselves with A&E in the first place is beyond me.


----------



## kiwiman127

Kosh said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well as the far left has demonstrated that they believe that their programmed opinions/propaganda is "fact".
> 
> Once the far left learns that their programming is DNC propaganda then we all can move forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but the far left seems to be the worst of the lot and far more dangerous and damaging.
Click to expand...


I'd say that each side of the aisle has their moments.  That's one of the reasons I come here. It's great entertainment!
One side screws up or shows intolerance and the other side jumps all over it to the point of serious exaggeration and that's usually where the humor comes in.  In the end, both sides look stupid!


----------



## ItsOnlyMe

Esmeralda said:


> ItsOnlyMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone were fired for thinking or even saying anything against gays, we'd be at 95% unemployment.  If I were in Phil's shoes, I'd make no more mention of this, and simply sever ties with A&E and move on to another network. or take my money and retire.  Unfortunately all this does is once again fuel the idea that the poor gays are "victims" once again.  I am sick of it.  It plays right into the gays' hands. Once again they are center of attention. They are eating it up.  And just because someone doesn't think being "gay" is normal, that doesn't mean we hate them or fear them (don't make me laugh!) or anything else.  *It is just not normal.  Period*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
Click to expand...


do 2 male ducks mate for life?  do 2 male lions have sex to the exclusion of the females?  It is not NATURE.  And it is MY opinion. I"M not "relgious" necessarily either. It's my opinion, it's common sense. We are all entitled to our own opinions.  Or are liberals the only ones whose opinion matter?  If you don't LIKE my opinion that mating for life with teh same gender and a man putting his member in another man anus, TOUGH! Get over it.  I couldn't care less.  I don't NEED to provide proof.  YOU provide "proof" to ME that animals of the same gender actually are having sex, and not some sort of dominant posturing crap.  YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion and I to mine.   But you liberals can't stand any opinion that isn't your. YOU the most intolerant!!

In fact, you like the way animals live?  They eat their young, the males kill the babies to make the mother go in heat faster, the ones who aren't at the top of the food chain get killed and eaten. And so unlike you libs, they are self-reliant. If they don't hunt, they don't eat. They alone are responsible for themselves, not some "animal government."  If one of them does see another same gender goings on, they are within their rights to stop it if they so desire. There is no political correctness in the animal world.  They animals live under a creed that no liberal can grasp.  You'd never make it as an animal.  You can ACT like animals, but that's the extent of it.


----------



## Wake

This controversy cements my belief that those who preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Wake said:


> This controversy cements my belief that those who preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant.



...of intolerance


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you break a morality clause by being moral?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hating people isn't moral.
Click to expand...


The Duck guy said nothing hateful, he quoted his view from the Bible, when he was asked the question. He said that certain people would not inherit God's Kingdom. I think people made way to much out of a statement, but GQ is really happy because now they will sell more magazines, and they have been relevant in decades.


----------



## Papageorgio

Wake said:


> This controversy cements my belief that those who preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant.



The left is a very intolerant group of people, they only believe in tolerance of those that agree with them. Sad to be that narrow minded.


----------



## kiwiman127

Papageorgio said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> This controversy cements my belief that those who preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left is a very intolerant group of people, they only believe in tolerance of those that agree with them. Sad to be that narrow minded.
Click to expand...


^
Now that's what I mean with my Post 978!  Thank you!


----------



## Papageorgio

kiwiman127 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> This controversy cements my belief that those who preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left is a very intolerant group of people, they only believe in tolerance of those that agree with them. Sad to be that narrow minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^
> Now that's what I mean with my Post 978!  Thank you!
Click to expand...


The right is tolerant, that is the accusation, it always has been. The fact is no one in this mess should be fired, just like no one should have fired Bashir or Imus or Maher. I have been consistent on this all along. That you don't know what I post or don't know my history, shows how ignorant and easily amused you are.

BTW, I am only here for entertainment, I would never take what you said to heart or even take you seriously.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you break a morality clause by being moral?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hating people isn't moral.
Click to expand...


Who was hating other then you? 

tapatalk post


----------



## kiwiman127

Papageorgio said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left is a very intolerant group of people, they only believe in tolerance of those that agree with them. Sad to be that narrow minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> Now that's what I mean with my Post 978!  Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is tolerant, that is the accusation, it always has been. The fact is no one in this mess should be fired, just like no one should have fired Bashir or Imus or Maher. I have been consistent on this all along. That you don't know what I post or don't know my history, shows how ignorant and easily amused you are.
> 
> BTW, I am only here for entertainment, I would never take what you said to heart or even take you seriously.
Click to expand...


I agree, you shouldn't take me seriously,,,,my wife doesn't ! 
Your comment about the right being tolerant? That too deserves a !


----------



## Papageorgio

kiwiman127 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> Now that's what I mean with my Post 978!  Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right is tolerant, that is the accusation, it always has been. The fact is no one in this mess should be fired, just like no one should have fired Bashir or Imus or Maher. I have been consistent on this all along. That you don't know what I post or don't know my history, shows how ignorant and easily amused you are.
> 
> BTW, I am only here for entertainment, I would never take what you said to heart or even take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, you shouldn't take me seriously,,,,my wife doesn't !
> Your comment about the right being tolerant? That too deserves a !
Click to expand...


I meant the Republicans are intolerant.


----------



## Papawx3

Something to think about:
I wonder why it is that homosexuals, including those who claim to be Christians, almost always are members of the Democrat party, whose voting base is made up of people who support an
anti-Christian agenda.


----------



## Destroyer2

Papawx3 said:


> Something to think about:
> I wonder why it is that homosexuals, including those who claim to be Christians, almost always are members of the Democrat party, whose voting base is made up of people who support an
> anti-Christian agenda.



The Democrat Party itself is not anti-Christian. The people that actually are anti-Christian are usually anti-religion in general, at least from my experience.

The actual reason is because they want marriage rights which Democrats are currently fighting for.

If they were anti-Christian though, it would make perfect sense for homosexuals to be part of them anyway since Christianity kinda sorta says homosexuality is a sin.


----------



## thanatos144

Papageorgio said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right is tolerant, that is the accusation, it always has been. The fact is no one in this mess should be fired, just like no one should have fired Bashir or Imus or Maher. I have been consistent on this all along. That you don't know what I post or don't know my history, shows how ignorant and easily amused you are.
> 
> BTW, I am only here for entertainment, I would never take what you said to heart or even take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, you shouldn't take me seriously,,,,my wife doesn't !
> Your comment about the right being tolerant? That too deserves a !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant the Republicans are intolerant.
Click to expand...


I have tolerance for you fuck off 

tapatalk post


----------



## Papageorgio

thanatos144 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, you shouldn't take me seriously,,,,my wife doesn't !
> Your comment about the right being tolerant? That too deserves a !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant the Republicans are intolerant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have tolerance for you fuck off
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Obviously, you didn't take my original post in context.


----------



## thanatos144

Papageorgio said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant the Republicans are intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have tolerance for you fuck off
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, you didn't take my original post in context.
Click to expand...


Probably not 

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Having tolerance does not mean blindly agreeing to everything a liberal tell us.  

tapatalk post


----------



## Papageorgio

thanatos144 said:


> Having tolerance does not mean blindly agreeing to everything a liberal tell us.
> 
> tapatalk post



I agree, I was presenting the fallacy that liberals believe that Conservatives are not tolerant. Which I find amusing as liberals do not like any idea that conflicts with their belief system.


----------



## thanatos144

Papageorgio said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having tolerance does not mean blindly agreeing to everything a liberal tell us.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, I was presenting the fallacy that liberals believe that Conservatives are not tolerant. Which I find amusing as liberals do not like any idea that conflicts with their belief system.
Click to expand...


Seeing as most of what they believe is f****** wrong that happens a lot you would think they'd be used to it by now. I am just getting tired of the secular fascists you don't want to believe in God that's fine that does not mean that you have the right to call you destroyed every person who does. This does not mean you as in I'm talking about you personally I'm using you in a general term

tapatalk post


----------



## Lumpy 1

If conservatives weren't so ridiculously respectful and tolerant this countries moral compass would NOT be so screwed up...

Just think about what the liberal, "anything goes experiment" but selfishly "somebody else pay for it attitude" has created in this country.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Papageorgio said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> This controversy cements my belief that those who preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left is a very intolerant group of people, they only believe in tolerance of those that agree with them. Sad to be that narrow minded.
Click to expand...


Funny how the right treats everyone as if there are only two choices

1) Agree with them
2) Be "intolerant" by not agreeing with their intolerance


----------



## thanatos144

ClosedCaption said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> This controversy cements my belief that those who preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left is a very intolerant group of people, they only believe in tolerance of those that agree with them. Sad to be that narrow minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the right treats everyone as if there are only two choices
> 
> 1) Agree with them
> 2) Be "intolerant" by not agreeing with their intolerance
Click to expand...


How in the hell is it that you always see the exact opposite of what is happening?

tapatalk post


----------



## Papageorgio

ClosedCaption said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> This controversy cements my belief that those who preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left is a very intolerant group of people, they only believe in tolerance of those that agree with them. Sad to be that narrow minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the right treats everyone as if there are only two choices
> 
> 1) Agree with them
> 2) Be "intolerant" by not agreeing with their intolerance
Click to expand...


I don't need anyone to agree with me, I am not going to push my belief system on you, the left wants to push their beliefs on everyone else. You can choose to believe in God or not, that is a choice. A man quotes the bible and gay groups get offended and work to silence his opinion. That is intolerance. 

If you believe in God, the left will start calling you ignorant. They want all religion put away and silenced, that is intolerance. 

Conservatives talk on radio show and the left wants to pass a law to limit their time, that is intolerance. 

You are gay, an atheist, pro-abortion, fine by me. Do I need to listen or watch you and your ideas? No, do I try to stop your ideas? No. I am tolerant.


----------



## Papageorgio

thanatos144 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having tolerance does not mean blindly agreeing to everything a liberal tell us.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, I was presenting the fallacy that liberals believe that Conservatives are not tolerant. Which I find amusing as liberals do not like any idea that conflicts with their belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as most of what they believe is f****** wrong that happens a lot you would think they'd be used to it by now. I am just getting tired of the secular fascists you don't want to believe in God that's fine that does not mean that you have the right to call you destroyed every person who does. This does not mean you as in I'm talking about you personally I'm using you in a general term
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I believe in God, I respect those that don't. I am tolerant of their opinion, I think liberals are not tolerant of views that don't align with theirs.


----------



## Iceman

JoeB131 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how liberals are now free market libertarians when it comes to allowing a corporation to fire or suspend it's workers for stating their religious/moral or political views.
> 
> So I will pose a scenario to them. Let's say there was an employee for a major corporation, like Dow Chemical. This individual happened to be an Atheist. He goes on facebook(outside his work environment mind you), and criticizes Christmas, saying God is not real and Jesus is a myth. Dow Chemical finds out and fires him. Are you saying Dow Chemical has the right to fire someone for criticizing a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would depend on how he was presenting himself and how public that was.
> 
> It would quite another thing if he presented that viewpoint on LinkedIn, which is a professional website, opposed to Facebook, which isn't.   If she presented herself as "I'm an Employee of Dow Chemical and I think Jesus sucks," she probably would be in violation of company policies.
> 
> But at my current job, a lady was fired because she posted a resume on Craig's List and said that "The company was bought out and she didn't feel comfortable there", and she was promptly fired for it.
> 
> Now, personally, I think that this is what happens when you have "right to work", non-union, "At-Will" employment, where workers have no rights, you should expect this sort of ass-hattery.
Click to expand...

So you oppose both men being fired?


----------



## Papawx3

I would imagine that the Duck Dynasty stars have made so much money off of their show that if they wanted, they could buy all the rights to the entire A&E network. Then they could be the ones to tell the present owners to take a long walk off a short pier. 
That _is_ the American way, is it not?


----------



## ItsOnlyMe

Papageorgio said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> This controversy cements my belief that those who preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left is a very intolerant group of people, they only believe in tolerance of those that agree with them. Sad to be that narrow minded.
Click to expand...


Well they have minimals wants:  sex with whoever and whatever, kill the result if it's inconvenient, and drugs and just basically let somebody else support all of it.  That's it.  Their needs are few.  so you can see when one of the 3 needs is threatened, they go ballistic.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you break a morality clause by being moral?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hating people isn't moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Duck guy said nothing hateful, he quoted his view from the Bible, when he was asked the question. He said that certain people would not inherit God's Kingdom. I think people made way to much out of a statement, but GQ is really happy because now they will sell more magazines, and they have been relevant in decades.
Click to expand...


Telling people they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they love isn't hateful?  

Sounds pretty hateful to me.   I mean, I get annoyed with a lot of you assclowns here, but I wouldn't wish for ANY of you to be tortured for all eternity.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Papawx3 said:


> I would imagine that the Duck Dynasty stars have made so much money off of their show that if they wanted, they could buy all the rights to the entire A&E network. Then they could be the ones to tell the present owners to take a long walk off a short pier.
> That _is_ the American way, is it not?



True.

And with their own network family members could broadcast their ignorance and hate to their hearts content.  

Apparently most conservatives dont understand that, theyre more interested in indulging their victim mentality, whining about being silenced, and exhibiting their ignorance in general.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, I was presenting the fallacy that liberals believe that Conservatives are not tolerant. Which I find amusing as liberals do not like any idea that conflicts with their belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as most of what they believe is f****** wrong that happens a lot you would think they'd be used to it by now. I am just getting tired of the secular fascists you don't want to believe in God that's fine that does not mean that you have the right to call you destroyed every person who does. This does not mean you as in I'm talking about you personally I'm using you in a general term
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in God, I respect those that don't. I am tolerant of their opinion, I think liberals are not tolerant of views that don't align with theirs.
Click to expand...


He's so tolerant he gives them nice blanket statements to keep them warm.

What a guy.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hating people isn't moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Duck guy said nothing hateful, he quoted his view from the Bible, when he was asked the question. He said that certain people would not inherit God's Kingdom. I think people made way to much out of a statement, but GQ is really happy because now they will sell more magazines, and they have been relevant in decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling people they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they love isn't hateful?
> 
> Sounds pretty hateful to me.   I mean, I get annoyed with a lot of you assclowns here, but I wouldn't wish for ANY of you to be tortured for all eternity.
Click to expand...


If that is what you believe.


----------



## kiwiman127

Papawx3 said:


> Something to think about:
> I wonder why it is that homosexuals, including those who claim to be Christians, almost always are members of the Democrat party, whose voting base is made up of people who support an
> anti-Christian agenda.



There are some elements within the Democratic Party that may be anti-Christian, but in general, most aren't.  Your post is one of those exaggerated partisan statements. 
When people note extreme elements within either party and then generalize the extreme elements as the entire party, that is exaggerated partisan hackery.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hating people isn't moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Duck guy said nothing hateful, he quoted his view from the Bible, when he was asked the question. He said that certain people would not inherit God's Kingdom. I think people made way to much out of a statement, but GQ is really happy because now they will sell more magazines, and they have been relevant in decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling people they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they love isn't hateful?
> 
> Sounds pretty hateful to me.   I mean, I get annoyed with a lot of you assclowns here, but I wouldn't wish for ANY of you to be tortured for all eternity.
Click to expand...


Killing babies in the womb is worse then believing sin keeps you from heaven. Supporting said baby killing is worse as well. I am guessing this why so many progressives wish to deny God. 

tapatalk post


----------



## hjmick

Incendiary? Not even close.


----------



## thanatos144

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Papawx3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that the Duck Dynasty stars have made so much money off of their show that if they wanted, they could buy all the rights to the entire A&E network. Then they could be the ones to tell the present owners to take a long walk off a short pier.
> That _is_ the American way, is it not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> And with their own network family members could broadcast their ignorance and hate to their hearts content.
> 
> Apparently most conservatives dont understand that, theyre more interested in indulging their victim mentality, whining about being silenced, and exhibiting their ignorance in general.
Click to expand...


You do know ignorance means lack of knowledge right? Because the only one showing it is you 

tapatalk post


----------



## ClosedCaption

Papageorgio said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left is a very intolerant group of people, they only believe in tolerance of those that agree with them. Sad to be that narrow minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the right treats everyone as if there are only two choices
> 
> 1) Agree with them
> 2) Be "intolerant" by not agreeing with their intolerance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need anyone to agree with me, I am not going to push my belief system on you, the left wants to push their beliefs on everyone else.
Click to expand...


Of course you dont need anyone to agree with you.  You just proclaim that anyone that doesnt agree with you is intolerant.  Which is the same thing you're claiming the left is doing except you attempt to shame someone into not disagreeing with you



> You can choose to believe in God or not, that is a choice. A man quotes the bible and gay groups get offended and work to silence his opinion. That is intolerance.



No they disagree with his opinion and his employer decided to punish him.  I guess the employer cannot express themselves either.  Everyone has to just accept the intolerance or be called intolerant.  Suuuuuuure 



> If you believe in God, the left will start calling you ignorant. They want all religion put away and silenced, that is intolerance.



You sound stupid unless you believe there arent any "leftist" in church.  Stop being a drama queen. 



> Conservatives talk on radio show and the left wants to pass a law to limit their time, that is intolerance.
> 
> You are gay, an atheist, pro-abortion, fine by me. Do I need to listen or watch you and your ideas? No, do I try to stop your ideas? No. I am tolerant.



Oh god, Tell A&E they are not allowed to make business decisions unless you deem them valid.  Because obviously you are the Arbiter of what is acceptable.


----------



## asaratis

ItsOnlyMe said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ItsOnlyMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone were fired for thinking or even saying anything against gays, we'd be at 95% unemployment.  If I were in Phil's shoes, I'd make no more mention of this, and simply sever ties with A&E and move on to another network. or take my money and retire.  Unfortunately all this does is once again fuel the idea that the poor gays are "victims" once again.  I am sick of it.  It plays right into the gays' hands. Once again they are center of attention. They are eating it up.  And just because someone doesn't think being "gay" is normal, that doesn't mean we hate them or fear them (don't make me laugh!) or anything else.  *It is just not normal.  Period*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do 2 male ducks mate for life?  do 2 male lions have sex to the exclusion of the females?  It is not NATURE.  And it is MY opinion. I"M not "relgious" necessarily either. It's my opinion, it's common sense. We are all entitled to our own opinions.  Or are liberals the only ones whose opinion matter?  If you don't LIKE my opinion that mating for life with teh same gender and a man putting his member in another man anus, TOUGH! Get over it.  I couldn't care less.  I don't NEED to provide proof.  YOU provide "proof" to ME that animals of the same gender actually are having sex, and not some sort of dominant posturing crap.  YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion and I to mine.   But you liberals can't stand any opinion that isn't your. YOU the most intolerant!!
> 
> In fact, you like the way animals live?  They eat their young, the males kill the babies to make the mother go in heat faster, the ones who aren't at the top of the food chain get killed and eaten. And so unlike you libs, they are self-reliant. If they don't hunt, they don't eat. They alone are responsible for themselves, not some "animal government."  If one of them does see another same gender goings on, they are within their rights to stop it if they so desire. There is no political correctness in the animal world.  They animals live under a creed that no liberal can grasp.  You'd never make it as an animal.  You can ACT like animals, but that's the extent of it.
Click to expand...

There has been some evidence of homosexual activity between female dolphins.

I have witnessed a domesticated goose and several ducks gang raping a Mallard drake on the shore of a country club lake, I've seen dogs humping each other...and there are the Bonobo chimps.

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior

Selected mammals from the full list:

    Bison[16]
    Brown Bear[17]
    Brown Rat[18]
    Cavy[18]
    Caribou[19]
    Cat (domestic)[20]
    Cattle (domestic)[21]
    Chimpanzee[22][23][24][25]
    Common Dolphin[26]
    Common Marmoset[27]
    Dog[28]
    Elephant[29]
    Fox[30]
    Giraffe[3][31][32]
    Goat[16]
    Horse (domestic)[33]
    Human[34][35][36]
    Koala[37]
    Lion[34]
    Orca[26]
    Raccoon[38]

The argument that homosexuality is therefore natural (occurs in nature) is undeniable.  This does not make it normal.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Cracker Barrel flip-flops, puts 'Duck Dynasty' products back on shelves*

Dec. 22, 2013, 5:09 PM EST
TheWrap 






Well, that didn't take long. The Cracker Barrel restaurant chain, two days after removing "Duck Dynasty"-related products from its shelves, said Sunday it was putting them back - and apologized to fans of the reality series.

Cracker Barrel began yanking Duck Dynasty-related items from its stores on Friday in the wake of patriarch Phil Robertson's inflammatory comments to GQ magazine about gays and blacks, saying it didn't want to offend fans of the A&E hit reality series.

...

Here's the entire post from Cracker Barrel:

"Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that's just what we've done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.

And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family."


Cracker Barrel flip-flops, puts 'Duck Dynasty' products back on shelves - MSN TV News


----------



## Pogo

Way to go Jizzhat.  We already have at least 5 (6? 7?) threads on Cracker Barrel.  Way to check the board.  Nothing like the old scattergun approach.


----------



## Gracie

I can't remember where I read it...but the BIGGEST stock holder of A&E is...are ya ready for it?...are ya sitting down?.....a muslim.
I don't believe all I read, but I thought I would put it out there. Disney owns A&E...or major stock. But some muslim guy owns a chunk of it as well. Supposedly.


----------



## American_Jihad

Pogo said:


> Way to go Jizzhat.  We already have at least 5 (6? 7?) threads on Cracker Barrel.  Way to check the board.  Nothing like the old scattergun approach.



Listen up cock sucker, my thread and I'll do as I please as always...

You just got salunskied rule 5/6, I gotta go back to the party, catch ya later jackass...


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hating people isn't moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Duck guy said nothing hateful, he quoted his view from the Bible, when he was asked the question. He said that certain people would not inherit God's Kingdom. I think people made way to much out of a statement, but GQ is really happy because now they will sell more magazines, and they have been relevant in decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling people they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they love isn't hateful?
> 
> Sounds pretty hateful to me.   I mean, I get annoyed with a lot of you assclowns here, but I wouldn't wish for ANY of you to be tortured for all eternity.
Click to expand...


I can't tell whether you are just retarded, or more a retarded ass hole with a penchant for lying and worshiping satan.


----------



## Gracie

B Sai Kumar?

Network18


----------



## Pogo

American_Jihad said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to go Jizzhat.  We already have at least 5 (6? 7?) threads on Cracker Barrel.  Way to check the board.  Nothing like the old scattergun approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen up cock sucker, my thread and I'll do as I please as always...
> 
> You just got salunskied rule 5/6, I gotta go back to the party, catch ya later jackass...
Click to expand...


Yeah I'd run away too if I were you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






Came across this and passing on for what it's worth; make of it what you will...

>>In one of a plethora of posts about the fallout to Phil Robertsons now infamous anti-gay remarks to a GQ reporter, TMZ, ironically, struck upon a key nuance to the situation that other publications have entirely missed: Where was Robertons PR counsel when the notorious interview happened? The publicist supporting Robertson was missing in action when the infamous anti-gay statements went down.

Which points to one of the most fundamental aspects of PR 101: when a reporter is present, you are always on the record. Always. On. The. Record.

Phil Robertsons now famous interview with the GQ reporter took place in several phases. The networks publicist attended, in accordance with A&Es rigid PR policy, TMZ saysbut when Robertson and the reporter hopped onto ATVs, the publicist didnt come along for the ride. Bingo. Opportunity knocked, the reporter took advantage of the casual setting to ask a personal question, and out popped the offending remarks.

Surely the Duck Dynasty team has received ample media training and counsel over the course of their hugely successful series, and yes, Phil Robertson is a bona fide adult who can and should be held accountable for his statements.

But had his PR counsel stayed by his side, the attentiveness could have changed history in two ways: 1) A reporter is far less likely to ask the out-of-left-field question with PR counsel standing by, and 2) Whether it took a kick in the shin, a dirty look or an outright interruption, PR counsel could have prevented the ad hoc statement from ever happening or could have at least softened the impact with a quick retraction, a follow up remark, or an apology on the spot. As it was, the PR counselor (and the network) learned of the statement in the worst possible wayalong with the rest of the world, when the interview went to print.

As a career PR lead, I believe this nuance is critical. As unacceptable as Robertsons crass remark may have been, could the knowledge that it was a casual remark he made in the midst of a seemingly social ATV ride make a difference? It might. Or it might not. Robertson is entitled to his personal opinions, but if TMZs reporting of the circumstance is accurate, it seems clear he never intended to issue the blunt statement for print. (However, an apology is still in order for the rudeness and insensitivity of the comments, even if they were made in a social setting and may possibly have been intended in jest.)

Time will tell. But Robertson (and his PR counsel) have reinforced a basic lesson in public relations in the hardest possible way.

Off-the-cuff remarks are on the record. <<  -- How Phil Robertson's PR Team Let Him Down


----------



## Pogo

Gracie said:


> I can't remember where I read it...but the BIGGEST stock holder of A&E is...are ya ready for it?...are ya sitting down?.....a muslim.
> I don't believe all I read, but I thought I would put it out there. Disney owns A&E...or major stock. But some muslim guy owns a chunk of it as well. Supposedly.



What's the significance?


----------



## Againsheila

asaratis said:


> ItsOnlyMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten* percent of the population is homosexual.* Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do 2 male ducks mate for life?  do 2 male lions have sex to the exclusion of the females?  It is not NATURE.  And it is MY opinion. I"M not "relgious" necessarily either. It's my opinion, it's common sense. We are all entitled to our own opinions.  Or are liberals the only ones whose opinion matter?  If you don't LIKE my opinion that mating for life with teh same gender and a man putting his member in another man anus, TOUGH! Get over it.  I couldn't care less.  I don't NEED to provide proof.  YOU provide "proof" to ME that animals of the same gender actually are having sex, and not some sort of dominant posturing crap.  YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion and I to mine.   But you liberals can't stand any opinion that isn't your. YOU the most intolerant!!
> 
> In fact, you like the way animals live?  They eat their young, the males kill the babies to make the mother go in heat faster, the ones who aren't at the top of the food chain get killed and eaten. And so unlike you libs, they are self-reliant. If they don't hunt, they don't eat. They alone are responsible for themselves, not some "animal government."  If one of them does see another same gender goings on, they are within their rights to stop it if they so desire. There is no political correctness in the animal world.  They animals live under a creed that no liberal can grasp.  You'd never make it as an animal.  You can ACT like animals, but that's the extent of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has been some evidence of homosexual activity between female dolphins.
> 
> I have witnessed a domesticated goose and several ducks gang raping a Mallard drake on the shore of a country club lake, I've seen dogs humping each other...and there are the Bonobo chimps.
> 
> List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Main article: List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior
> 
> Selected mammals from the full list:
> 
> Bison[16]
> Brown Bear[17]
> Brown Rat[18]
> Cavy[18]
> Caribou[19]
> Cat (domestic)[20]
> Cattle (domestic)[21]
> Chimpanzee[22][23][24][25]
> Common Dolphin[26]
> Common Marmoset[27]
> Dog[28]
> Elephant[29]
> Fox[30]
> Giraffe[3][31][32]
> Goat[16]
> Horse (domestic)[33]
> Human[34][35][36]
> Koala[37]
> Lion[34]
> Orca[26]
> Raccoon[38]
> 
> The argument that homosexuality is therefore natural (occurs in nature) is undeniable.  This does not make it normal.
Click to expand...


Going back to It'sOnlyMe's post, more than 10% of our population has Autism, does that make it normal?


----------



## Esmeralda

As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts.  No one can say definitively what is natura or normal.  Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture.  Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world.  Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays.  Accept it.  You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.


----------



## thanatos144

Esmeralda said:


> As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts.  No one can say definitively what is natura or normal.  Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture.  Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world.  Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays.  Accept it.  You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.



What complete bullshit.  Normal and natural are not subjective. You liberals always try to twist and spin something to fit your lie. Homosexuals are not normal.  Since they are human they are natural but their sexual behavior Is not. Whether it is evil is up to God.  Whether it is a sin is up to your bible.  My Christian bible days it is but it also says to never hate the sinner just the sin. 

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Duck guy said nothing hateful, he quoted his view from the Bible, when he was asked the question. He said that certain people would not inherit God's Kingdom. I think people made way to much out of a statement, but GQ is really happy because now they will sell more magazines, and they have been relevant in decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling people they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they love isn't hateful?
> 
> Sounds pretty hateful to me.   I mean, I get annoyed with a lot of you assclowns here, but I wouldn't wish for ANY of you to be tortured for all eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing babies in the womb is worse then believing sin keeps you from heaven. Supporting said baby killing is worse as well. I am guessing this why so many progressives wish to deny God.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...



If abortion was "killing babies" then why didn't God SPECIFICALLY prohibit it in the Bible? 

I mean the guy had rules for how the Hebrews should cut their hair and what their clothes should look like and how to wash your nutsack after a wet dream, but you would think if protecting the fetus was such an important thing, he'd have spelled that one out.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

asaratis said:


> ItsOnlyMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do 2 male ducks mate for life?  do 2 male lions have sex to the exclusion of the females?  It is not NATURE.  And it is MY opinion. I"M not "relgious" necessarily either. It's my opinion, it's common sense. We are all entitled to our own opinions.  Or are liberals the only ones whose opinion matter?  If you don't LIKE my opinion that mating for life with teh same gender and a man putting his member in another man anus, TOUGH! Get over it.  I couldn't care less.  I don't NEED to provide proof.  YOU provide "proof" to ME that animals of the same gender actually are having sex, and not some sort of dominant posturing crap.  YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion and I to mine.   But you liberals can't stand any opinion that isn't your. YOU the most intolerant!!
> 
> In fact, you like the way animals live?  They eat their young, the males kill the babies to make the mother go in heat faster, the ones who aren't at the top of the food chain get killed and eaten. And so unlike you libs, they are self-reliant. If they don't hunt, they don't eat. They alone are responsible for themselves, not some "animal government."  If one of them does see another same gender goings on, they are within their rights to stop it if they so desire. There is no political correctness in the animal world.  They animals live under a creed that no liberal can grasp.  You'd never make it as an animal.  You can ACT like animals, but that's the extent of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has been some evidence of homosexual activity between female dolphins.
> 
> I have witnessed a domesticated goose and several ducks gang raping a Mallard drake on the shore of a country club lake, I've seen dogs humping each other...and there are the Bonobo chimps.
> 
> List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Main article: List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior
> 
> Selected mammals from the full list:
> 
> Bison[16]
> Brown Bear[17]
> Brown Rat[18]
> Cavy[18]
> Caribou[19]
> Cat (domestic)[20]
> Cattle (domestic)[21]
> Chimpanzee[22][23][24][25]
> Common Dolphin[26]
> Common Marmoset[27]
> Dog[28]
> Elephant[29]
> Fox[30]
> Giraffe[3][31][32]
> Goat[16]
> Horse (domestic)[33]
> Human[34][35][36]
> Koala[37]
> Lion[34]
> Orca[26]
> Raccoon[38]
> 
> The argument that homosexuality is therefore natural (occurs in nature) is undeniable.  This does not make it normal.
Click to expand...

The act of sex is for pleasure and reproduction Animals do not use sex for pleasure only for reproduction and to show they're the dominant male in the pack or herd.


----------



## JoeB131

bigrebnc1775 said:


> [q
> The act of sex is for pleasure and reproduction Animals do not use sex for pleasure only for reproduction and to show they're the dominant male in the pack or herd.



Animals have no idea that sex leads to reproduction.  

They're animals. They are hard-wired to simply have sex, and it stimulates the pleasure centers in their brains.  They can't make a conscious decision.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> The act of sex is for pleasure and reproduction Animals do not use sex for pleasure only for reproduction and to show they're the dominant male in the pack or herd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Animals have no idea that sex leads to reproduction.
> 
> They're animals. They are hard-wired to simply have sex, and it stimulates the pleasure centers in their brains.  They can't make a conscious decision.
Click to expand...


To advance the spices/ (species) is what they are hardwired for. Pleasure is not one of them. To dominate a rival is.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling people they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they love isn't hateful?
> 
> Sounds pretty hateful to me.   I mean, I get annoyed with a lot of you assclowns here, but I wouldn't wish for ANY of you to be tortured for all eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing babies in the womb is worse then believing sin keeps you from heaven. Supporting said baby killing is worse as well. I am guessing this why so many progressives wish to deny God.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion was "killing babies" then why didn't God SPECIFICALLY prohibit it in the Bible?
> 
> I mean the guy had rules for how the Hebrews should cut their hair and what their clothes should look like and how to wash your nutsack after a wet dream, but you would think if protecting the fetus was such an important thing, he'd have spelled that one out.
Click to expand...


He did you f****** idiot thou shall not murder

tapatalk post


----------



## martybegan

thanatos144 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts.  No one can say definitively what is natura or normal.  Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture.  Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world.  Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays.  Accept it.  You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What complete bullshit.  Normal and natural are not subjective. You liberals always try to twist and spin something to fit your lie. Homosexuals are not normal.  Since they are human they are natural but their sexual behavior Is not. Whether it is evil is up to God.  Whether it is a sin is up to your bible.  My Christian bible days it is but it also says to never hate the sinner just the sin.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...



The biological purpose of sexual relations is to reproduce. Homosexuality does not allow for that, and thus is a biological defect, as it hinders the individual person's ability to reproduce and thus continue thier genetic line. 

Its up to society to decide if a behavior is allowable or tolerable, but biology says its something screwy.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killing babies in the womb is worse then believing sin keeps you from heaven. Supporting said baby killing is worse as well. I am guessing this why so many progressives wish to deny God.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion was "killing babies" then why didn't God SPECIFICALLY prohibit it in the Bible?
> 
> I mean the guy had rules for how the Hebrews should cut their hair and what their clothes should look like and how to wash your nutsack after a wet dream, but you would think if protecting the fetus was such an important thing, he'd have spelled that one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did you f****** idiot thou shall not murder
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Again, where did he specifically say that about fetuses? 

Quite the contrary, the bible calls for pregnant women to be killed if they violate God's other laws, therefore the bible did not see the fetus as a person.

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses. 

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17 
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.) 

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14 

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16 

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16 

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ... 
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28 

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion was "killing babies" then why didn't God SPECIFICALLY prohibit it in the Bible?
> 
> I mean the guy had rules for how the Hebrews should cut their hair and what their clothes should look like and how to wash your nutsack after a wet dream, but you would think if protecting the fetus was such an important thing, he'd have spelled that one out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did you f****** idiot thou shall not murder
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, where did he specifically say that about fetuses?
> 
> Quite the contrary, the bible calls for pregnant women to be killed if they violate God's other laws, therefore the bible did not see the fetus as a person.
> 
> God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.
> 
> And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
> (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
> 
> Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
> 
> Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
> 
> Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
> 
> The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
> And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
> 
> Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
Click to expand...


Listen you sick f*** none of that talked about killing a baby for convenience. Thou shall not murder abortion is murder

tapatalk post


----------



## paperview

bigrebnc1775 said:


> To advance the spices is what they are hardwired for. Pleasure is not one of them.
> ...


Thyme to curry some hot ginger in the cayenne, you see, nutmeg, chicory's be hardwired for cumin!


----------



## thanatos144

paperview said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To advance the spices is what they are hardwired for. Pleasure is not one of them.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Thyme to curry some hot ginger in the cayenne, you see, nutmeg, chicory's be hardwired for cumin!
Click to expand...


Yes we all see how childish you are good for you. Now go back and play with your dolls

tapatalk post


----------



## paperview

thanatos144 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To advance the spices is what they are hardwired for. Pleasure is not one of them.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Thyme to curry some hot ginger in the cayenne, you see, nutmeg, chicory's be hardwired for cumin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we all see how childish you are good for you. Now go back and play with your dolls
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

Ah, I see someone has pissed in your cheerios this morning.


----------



## bigrebnc1775




----------



## thanatos144

paperview said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thyme to curry some hot ginger in the cayenne, you see, nutmeg, chicory's be hardwired for cumin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we all see how childish you are good for you. Now go back and play with your dolls
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, I see someone has pissed in your cheerios this morning.
Click to expand...


No the grammar police annoy me 

tapatalk post


----------



## bigrebnc1775

paperview said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To advance the spices is what they are hardwired for. Pleasure is not one of them.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Thyme to curry some hot ginger in the cayenne, you see, nutmeg, chicory's be hardwired for cumin!
Click to expand...


Nothing to offer?


----------



## paperview

bigrebnc1775 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To advance the spices is what they are hardwired for. Pleasure is not one of them.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Thyme to curry some hot ginger in the cayenne, you see, nutmeg, chicory's be hardwired for cumin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing to offer?
Click to expand...

I was advancing the spices.

Lighten up, cupcake.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did you f****** idiot thou shall not murder
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where did he specifically say that about fetuses?
> 
> Quite the contrary, the bible calls for pregnant women to be killed if they violate God's other laws, therefore the bible did not see the fetus as a person.
> 
> God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.
> 
> And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
> (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
> 
> Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
> 
> Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
> 
> Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
> 
> The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
> And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
> 
> Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen you sick f*** none of that talked about killing a baby for convenience. Thou shall not murder abortion is murder
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


No, those things talked about killing fetuses and women because they were PROPERTY. 

You see, that's the thing. The Christian oppossition to contraception used to be "keeping the women in their place as property."  

So you killed them if they got knocked up by another guy or if you were trying to steal a neighboring tribes land and wanted to wipe out their seed.  Women were property.  

And then the ladies stopped putting up with that, and SUDDENLY you guys got all concerned about the "babies".


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where did he specifically say that about fetuses?
> 
> Quite the contrary, the bible calls for pregnant women to be killed if they violate God's other laws, therefore the bible did not see the fetus as a person.
> 
> God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.
> 
> And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
> (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
> 
> Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
> 
> Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
> 
> Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
> 
> The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
> And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
> 
> Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you sick f*** none of that talked about killing a baby for convenience. Thou shall not murder abortion is murder
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those things talked about killing fetuses and women because they were PROPERTY.
> 
> You see, that's the thing. The Christian oppossition to contraception used to be "keeping the women in their place as property."
> 
> So you killed them if they got knocked up by another guy or if you were trying to steal a neighboring tribes land and wanted to wipe out their seed.  Women were property.
> 
> And then the ladies stopped putting up with that, and SUDDENLY you guys got all concerned about the "babies".
Click to expand...


You are such  twisted mother f*****

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you sick f*** none of that talked about killing a baby for convenience. Thou shall not murder abortion is murder
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those things talked about killing fetuses and women because they were PROPERTY.
> 
> You see, that's the thing. The Christian oppossition to contraception used to be "keeping the women in their place as property."
> 
> So you killed them if they got knocked up by another guy or if you were trying to steal a neighboring tribes land and wanted to wipe out their seed.  Women were property.
> 
> And then the ladies stopped putting up with that, and SUDDENLY you guys got all concerned about the "babies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such  twisted mother f*****
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Yes, I am. 

Doesn't take away from my point, though.  

The thing is, what you guys want to do is cherry pick from the bible the verses that support your worldview, while ignoring the ones that are just batshit crazy. 

We don't kill women anymore for not being virgins on their wedding nights.  Most people would consider this a positive development.


----------



## GreenBean

bigrebnc1775 said:


>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion was "killing babies" then why didn't God SPECIFICALLY prohibit it in the Bible?
> 
> I mean the guy had rules for how the Hebrews should cut their hair and what their clothes should look like and how to wash your nutsack after a wet dream, but you would think if protecting the fetus was such an important thing, he'd have spelled that one out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did you f****** idiot thou shall not murder
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, where did he specifically say that about fetuses?
> 
> Quite the contrary, the bible calls for pregnant women to be killed if they violate God's other laws, therefore the bible did not see the fetus as a person.
> 
> God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.
> 
> And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
> (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
> 
> Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
> 
> Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
> 
> Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
> 
> The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
> And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
> 
> Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
Click to expand...


New American Standard Bible 
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."Jeremiah 1:5


----------



## daws101

news flash.....Robertson was not FIRED...but put on hiatus (a very short one) he will be returning for the 5th season of DD.
so now you folks who supported him can bullshit yourselves in to thinking you had a hand in it.
the fact is in showbiz money will over ride "morals" every time....


----------



## Iceman

daws101 said:


> news flash.....Robertson was not FIRED...but put on hiatus (a very short one) he will be returning for the 5th season of DD.
> so now you folks who supported him can bullshit yourselves in to thinking you had a hand in it.
> the fact is in showbiz money will over ride "morals" every time....


The Gay Lobby and the Professional Left has failed again. I saw this coming, Chick Fil A and the Sochi Olympics were indicators.


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> news flash.....Robertson was not FIRED...but put on hiatus (a very short one) he will be returning for the 5th season of DD.
> so now you folks who supported him can bullshit yourselves in to thinking you had a hand in it.
> the fact is in showbiz money will over ride "morals" every time....
> 
> 
> 
> The Gay Lobby and the Professional Left has failed again. I saw this coming, Chick Fil A and the Sochi Olympics were indicators.
Click to expand...

I smell an amazing amount of bullshit all of a sudden...!
wow you have a rich fantasy life.....


----------



## Iceman

daws101 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> news flash.....Robertson was not FIRED...but put on hiatus (a very short one) he will be returning for the 5th season of DD.
> so now you folks who supported him can bullshit yourselves in to thinking you had a hand in it.
> the fact is in showbiz money will over ride "morals" every time....
> 
> 
> 
> The Gay Lobby and the Professional Left has failed again. I saw this coming, Chick Fil A and the Sochi Olympics were indicators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I smell an amazing amount of bullshit all of a sudden...!
> wow you have a rich fantasy life.....
Click to expand...


Don't be such a sore loser...


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gay Lobby and the Professional Left has failed again. I saw this coming, Chick Fil A and the Sochi Olympics were indicators.
> 
> 
> 
> I smell an amazing amount of bullshit all of a sudden...!
> wow you have a rich fantasy life.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be such a sore loser...
Click to expand...

why would your ignorance make me a sore loser?
my guess is you have a giant L tattooed on your forehead...


----------



## RKMBrown

martybegan said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts.  No one can say definitively what is natura or normal.  Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture.  Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world.  Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays.  Accept it.  You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What complete bullshit.  Normal and natural are not subjective. You liberals always try to twist and spin something to fit your lie. Homosexuals are not normal.  Since they are human they are natural but their sexual behavior Is not. Whether it is evil is up to God.  Whether it is a sin is up to your bible.  My Christian bible days it is but it also says to never hate the sinner just the sin.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The biological purpose of sexual relations is to reproduce. Homosexuality does not allow for that, and thus is a biological defect, as it hinders the individual person's ability to reproduce and thus continue thier genetic line.
> 
> Its up to society to decide if a behavior is allowable or tolerable, but biology says its something screwy.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the obvious fact that the bung hole is the place where shit comes out


----------



## Iceman

daws101 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I smell an amazing amount of bullshit all of a sudden...!
> wow you have a rich fantasy life.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be such a sore loser...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would your ignorance make me a sore loser?
> my guess is you have a giant L tattooed on your forehead...
Click to expand...


I find your anger amusing. Why does it enrage you so much Phil Robertson has a TV show? Hell, homosexuals are all over Network and Cable TV. I don't care, and you know what I do? Don't watch. Easy enough.


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be such a sore loser...
> 
> 
> 
> why would your ignorance make me a sore loser?
> my guess is you have a giant L tattooed on your forehead...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find your anger amusing. Why does it enrage you so much Phil Robertson has a TV show? Hell, homosexuals are all over Network and Cable TV. I don't care, and you know what I do? Don't watch. Easy enough.
Click to expand...

 again an ignorant assumption.....mater of fact I like DD because it's a farce....it's as fake as plastic tits...even more amusing are sanctimonious dumbfucks like you!


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What complete bullshit.  Normal and natural are not subjective. You liberals always try to twist and spin something to fit your lie. Homosexuals are not normal.  Since they are human they are natural but their sexual behavior Is not. Whether it is evil is up to God.  Whether it is a sin is up to your bible.  My Christian bible days it is but it also says to never hate the sinner just the sin.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biological purpose of sexual relations is to reproduce. Homosexuality does not allow for that, and thus is a biological defect, as it hinders the individual person's ability to reproduce and thus continue thier genetic line.
> 
> Its up to society to decide if a behavior is allowable or tolerable, but biology says its something screwy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention the obvious fact that the bung hole is the place where shit comes out
Click to expand...

Stephan Cohan's book Masked Men discusses the definition of masculinity in the movies, especially those movies which are so stridently heterosexual that they raise doubt about what is really going on. Cohan argues that the Howard Hawks western Red River is a gay love story between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. Clift later starred in films like Suddenly Last Summer in which his gay sexuality was actually a thematic element.

If Red River is a gay love story, how about Sands of Iwo Jima? In both of these films, women come on to John Wayne and he pushes them away. In Wayne's personal life he was not the swaggering macho man he presented himself to be. Dominated by his mother as a child, he married dominating women as an adult. He even claimed to be the victim of spousal abuse.

Is is possible that the "chemistry" between openly gay Montgomery Clift and macho man John Wayne reflects post-war ambivalence about alternative sexuality? Red River ends with an embrace between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift, while Joanne Dru, the female whom they have both spurned, scolds them. This is a departure from the book the film is based on. In the book, Clift gets the girl when Wayne dies. In the movie, the boys get each other.


----------



## Iceman

daws101 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would your ignorance make me a sore loser?
> my guess is you have a giant L tattooed on your forehead...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find your anger amusing. Why does it enrage you so much Phil Robertson has a TV show? Hell, homosexuals are all over Network and Cable TV. I don't care, and you know what I do? Don't watch. Easy enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again an ignorant assumption.....mater of fact I like DD because it's a farce....it's as fake as plastic tits...even more amusing are sanctimonious dumbfucks like you!
Click to expand...


What is ignorant? That you are angry? No, that is evident by your posts.


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your anger amusing. Why does it enrage you so much Phil Robertson has a TV show? Hell, homosexuals are all over Network and Cable TV. I don't care, and you know what I do? Don't watch. Easy enough.
> 
> 
> 
> again an ignorant assumption.....mater of fact I like DD because it's a farce....it's as fake as plastic tits...even more amusing are sanctimonious dumbfucks like you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is ignorant? That you are angry? No, that is evident by your posts.
Click to expand...

obviously you are....


----------



## Iceman

daws101 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again an ignorant assumption.....mater of fact I like DD because it's a farce....it's as fake as plastic tits...even more amusing are sanctimonious dumbfucks like you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is ignorant? That you are angry? No, that is evident by your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously you are....
Click to expand...


About what? Why would I be mad Phil Robertson is getting his show back? I don't even watch it. 

The only thing I get amusement out of is the Gay Lobby failing, again.


----------



## RKMBrown

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biological purpose of sexual relations is to reproduce. Homosexuality does not allow for that, and thus is a biological defect, as it hinders the individual person's ability to reproduce and thus continue thier genetic line.
> 
> Its up to society to decide if a behavior is allowable or tolerable, but biology says its something screwy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the obvious fact that the bung hole is the place where shit comes out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stephan Cohan's book Masked Men discusses the definition of masculinity in the movies, especially those movies which are so stridently heterosexual that they raise doubt about what is really going on. Cohan argues that the Howard Hawks western Red River is a gay love story between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. Clift later starred in films like Suddenly Last Summer in which his gay sexuality was actually a thematic element.
> 
> If Red River is a gay love story, how about Sands of Iwo Jima? In both of these films, women come on to John Wayne and he pushes them away. In Wayne's personal life he was not the swaggering macho man he presented himself to be. Dominated by his mother as a child, he married dominating women as an adult. He even claimed to be the victim of spousal abuse.
> 
> Is is possible that the "chemistry" between openly gay Montgomery Clift and macho man John Wayne reflects post-war ambivalence about alternative sexuality? Red River ends with an embrace between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift, while Joanne Dru, the female whom they have both spurned, scolds them. This is a departure from the book the film is based on. In the book, Clift gets the girl when Wayne dies. In the movie, the boys get each other.
Click to expand...


Clift is playing the adopted son in that movie you freaking retard.


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ignorant? That you are angry? No, that is evident by your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you are....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About what? Why would I be mad Phil Robertson is getting his show back? I don't even watch it.
> 
> The only thing I get amusement out of is the Gay Lobby failing, again.
Click to expand...

the  gay lobby did not fail.....you not understanding how the entertainment business works just proves my point...the gay lobby had no more to do with the out come then Robertson's fans..


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the obvious fact that the bung hole is the place where shit comes out
> 
> 
> 
> Stephan Cohan's book Masked Men discusses the definition of masculinity in the movies, especially those movies which are so stridently heterosexual that they raise doubt about what is really going on. Cohan argues that the Howard Hawks western Red River is a gay love story between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. Clift later starred in films like Suddenly Last Summer in which his gay sexuality was actually a thematic element.
> 
> If Red River is a gay love story, how about Sands of Iwo Jima? In both of these films, women come on to John Wayne and he pushes them away. In Wayne's personal life he was not the swaggering macho man he presented himself to be. Dominated by his mother as a child, he married dominating women as an adult. He even claimed to be the victim of spousal abuse.
> 
> Is is possible that the "chemistry" between openly gay Montgomery Clift and macho man John Wayne reflects post-war ambivalence about alternative sexuality? Red River ends with an embrace between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift, while Joanne Dru, the female whom they have both spurned, scolds them. This is a departure from the book the film is based on. In the book, Clift gets the girl when Wayne dies. In the movie, the boys get each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clift is playing the adopted son in that movie you freaking retard.
Click to expand...

really? not like I haven't seen the film numerous times....playing is the operative word.


----------



## JoeB131

bigrebnc1775 said:


> [
> 
> New American Standard Bible
> "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."Jeremiah 1:5



That would imply personhood before conception... which is interesting.


----------



## Iceman

daws101 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you are....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About what? Why would I be mad Phil Robertson is getting his show back? I don't even watch it.
> 
> The only thing I get amusement out of is the Gay Lobby failing, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the  gay lobby did not fail.....you not understanding how the entertainment business works just proves my point...the gay lobby had no more to do with the out come then Robertson's fans..
Click to expand...


Glaad had nothing to do with pressuring A&E to suspend him?

DD fans and their backlash had nothing to do with getting him back on?

What world are you living in? 

Look, just take your licks and admit your side lost. There is honor in that, if you are interested.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Esmeralda said:


> As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts.  No one can say definitively what is natura or normal.  Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture.  Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world.  Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays.  Accept it.  You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.



So, we're seeing the _normalization_ of homosexuality according to social standards.  There are still no conclusive studies to date that indicate it is _natural_.


----------



## bodecea

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biological purpose of sexual relations is to reproduce. Homosexuality does not allow for that, and thus is a biological defect, as it hinders the individual person's ability to reproduce and thus continue thier genetic line.
> 
> Its up to society to decide if a behavior is allowable or tolerable, but biology says its something screwy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the obvious fact that the bung hole is the place where shit comes out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stephan Cohan's book Masked Men discusses the definition of masculinity in the movies, especially those movies which are so stridently heterosexual that they raise doubt about what is really going on. Cohan argues that the Howard Hawks western Red River is a gay love story between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. Clift later starred in films like Suddenly Last Summer in which his gay sexuality was actually a thematic element.
> 
> If Red River is a gay love story, how about Sands of Iwo Jima? In both of these films, women come on to John Wayne and he pushes them away. In Wayne's personal life he was not the swaggering macho man he presented himself to be. Dominated by his mother as a child, he married dominating women as an adult. He even claimed to be the victim of spousal abuse.
> 
> Is is possible that the "chemistry" between openly gay Montgomery Clift and macho man John Wayne reflects post-war ambivalence about alternative sexuality? Red River ends with an embrace between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift, while Joanne Dru, the female whom they have both spurned, scolds them. This is a departure from the book the film is based on. In the book, Clift gets the girl when Wayne dies. In the movie, the boys get each other.
Click to expand...

"The Celluloid Closet" is a great movie for that kind of info.


----------



## gallantwarrior

bigrebnc1775 said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ItsOnlyMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> do 2 male ducks mate for life?  do 2 male lions have sex to the exclusion of the females?  It is not NATURE.  And it is MY opinion. I"M not "relgious" necessarily either. It's my opinion, it's common sense. We are all entitled to our own opinions.  Or are liberals the only ones whose opinion matter?  If you don't LIKE my opinion that mating for life with teh same gender and a man putting his member in another man anus, TOUGH! Get over it.  I couldn't care less.  I don't NEED to provide proof.  YOU provide "proof" to ME that animals of the same gender actually are having sex, and not some sort of dominant posturing crap.  YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion and I to mine.   But you liberals can't stand any opinion that isn't your. YOU the most intolerant!!
> 
> In fact, you like the way animals live?  They eat their young, the males kill the babies to make the mother go in heat faster, the ones who aren't at the top of the food chain get killed and eaten. And so unlike you libs, they are self-reliant. If they don't hunt, they don't eat. They alone are responsible for themselves, not some "animal government."  If one of them does see another same gender goings on, they are within their rights to stop it if they so desire. There is no political correctness in the animal world.  They animals live under a creed that no liberal can grasp.  You'd never make it as an animal.  You can ACT like animals, but that's the extent of it.
> 
> 
> 
> There has been some evidence of homosexual activity between female dolphins.
> 
> I have witnessed a domesticated goose and several ducks gang raping a Mallard drake on the shore of a country club lake, I've seen dogs humping each other...and there are the Bonobo chimps.
> 
> List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Main article: List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior
> 
> Selected mammals from the full list:
> 
> Bison[16]
> Brown Bear[17]
> Brown Rat[18]
> Cavy[18]
> Caribou[19]
> Cat (domestic)[20]
> Cattle (domestic)[21]
> Chimpanzee[22][23][24][25]
> Common Dolphin[26]
> Common Marmoset[27]
> Dog[28]
> Elephant[29]
> Fox[30]
> Giraffe[3][31][32]
> Goat[16]
> Horse (domestic)[33]
> Human[34][35][36]
> Koala[37]
> Lion[34]
> Orca[26]
> Raccoon[38]
> 
> The argument that homosexuality is therefore natural (occurs in nature) is undeniable.  This does not make it normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The act of sex is for pleasure and reproduction Animals do not use sex for pleasure only for reproduction and to show they're the dominant male in the pack or herd.
Click to expand...


The females will also use mounting behavior to show dominance.  Usually when they start to come into heat, and not nearly as frequently as males.  The kids will mount each other, too, in order to establish dominance among their peers.  But understand, anthropomorphic depiction of animal behavior is used to lend legitimacy to unnatural human sexual behavior.  It makes them feel better about themselves if they can claim that animals do it too.


----------



## daws101

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> New American Standard Bible
> "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."Jeremiah 1:5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would imply personhood before conception... which is interesting.
Click to expand...

in fiction any thing is possible


----------



## gallantwarrior

Iceman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ignorant? That you are angry? No, that is evident by your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you are....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About what? Why would I be mad Phil Robertson is getting his show back? I don't even watch it.
> 
> The only thing I get amusement out of is the Gay Lobby failing, again.
Click to expand...


It's always refreshing to see the bully get beat down.


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> About what? Why would I be mad Phil Robertson is getting his show back? I don't even watch it.
> 
> The only thing I get amusement out of is the Gay Lobby failing, again.
> 
> 
> 
> the  gay lobby did not fail.....you not understanding how the entertainment business works just proves my point...the gay lobby had no more to do with the out come then Robertson's fans..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glaad had nothing to do with pressuring A&E to suspend him?
> 
> DD fans and their backlash had nothing to do with getting him back on?
> 
> What world are you living in?
> 
> Look, just take your licks and admit your side lost. There is honor in that, if you are interested.
Click to expand...

nice rationalizing and no, the backlash was good pr and nothing else.
and again no because "my side" brought to light his homophobia and bigotry....so nothing important was lost...
the real question is what world do you live in?.....obviously not this one .


----------



## daws101

gallantwarrior said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts.  No one can say definitively what is natura or normal.  Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture.  Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world.  Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays.  Accept it.  You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we're seeing the _normalization_ of homosexuality according to social standards.  There are still no conclusive studies to date that indicate it is _natural_.
Click to expand...

conversely there are none that say it's not....just a shit load of superstition and bias..


----------



## gallantwarrior

daws101 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts.  No one can say definitively what is natura or normal.  Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture.  Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world.  Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays.  Accept it.  You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we're seeing the _normalization_ of homosexuality according to social standards.  There are still no conclusive studies to date that indicate it is _natural_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> conversely there are none that say it's not....just a shit load of superstition and bias..
Click to expand...


A shitload of convenient extrapolation, anthropomorphic projection, and yes, bias.  And how often have the libturds here claimed that you cannot prove a negative.


----------



## daws101

bodecea said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the obvious fact that the bung hole is the place where shit comes out
> 
> 
> 
> Stephan Cohan's book Masked Men discusses the definition of masculinity in the movies, especially those movies which are so stridently heterosexual that they raise doubt about what is really going on. Cohan argues that the Howard Hawks western Red River is a gay love story between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. Clift later starred in films like Suddenly Last Summer in which his gay sexuality was actually a thematic element.
> 
> If Red River is a gay love story, how about Sands of Iwo Jima? In both of these films, women come on to John Wayne and he pushes them away. In Wayne's personal life he was not the swaggering macho man he presented himself to be. Dominated by his mother as a child, he married dominating women as an adult. He even claimed to be the victim of spousal abuse.
> 
> Is is possible that the "chemistry" between openly gay Montgomery Clift and macho man John Wayne reflects post-war ambivalence about alternative sexuality? Red River ends with an embrace between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift, while Joanne Dru, the female whom they have both spurned, scolds them. This is a departure from the book the film is based on. In the book, Clift gets the girl when Wayne dies. In the movie, the boys get each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Celluloid Closet" is a great movie for that kind of info.
Click to expand...

seen it, a real eye opener!
it would give these homophobes a coronary!


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts.  No one can say definitively what is natura or normal.  Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture.  Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world.  Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays.  Accept it.  You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we're seeing the _normalization_ of homosexuality according to social standards.  There are still no conclusive studies to date that indicate it is _natural_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> conversely there are none that say it's not....just a shit load of superstition and bias..
Click to expand...


Everything shows homosexuality is not normal 

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stephan Cohan's book Masked Men discusses the definition of masculinity in the movies, especially those movies which are so stridently heterosexual that they raise doubt about what is really going on. Cohan argues that the Howard Hawks western Red River is a gay love story between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. Clift later starred in films like Suddenly Last Summer in which his gay sexuality was actually a thematic element.
> 
> If Red River is a gay love story, how about Sands of Iwo Jima? In both of these films, women come on to John Wayne and he pushes them away. In Wayne's personal life he was not the swaggering macho man he presented himself to be. Dominated by his mother as a child, he married dominating women as an adult. He even claimed to be the victim of spousal abuse.
> 
> Is is possible that the "chemistry" between openly gay Montgomery Clift and macho man John Wayne reflects post-war ambivalence about alternative sexuality? Red River ends with an embrace between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift, while Joanne Dru, the female whom they have both spurned, scolds them. This is a departure from the book the film is based on. In the book, Clift gets the girl when Wayne dies. In the movie, the boys get each other.
> 
> 
> 
> "The Celluloid Closet" is a great movie for that kind of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seen it, a real eye opener!
> it would give these homophobes a coronary!
Click to expand...


Phobia is being afraid of something. I am not scared of homosexual bullies.  

tapatalk post


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, we're seeing the _normalization_ of homosexuality according to social standards.  There are still no conclusive studies to date that indicate it is _natural_.
> 
> 
> 
> conversely there are none that say it's not....just a shit load of superstition and bias..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything shows homosexuality is not normal
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

bullshit!


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Celluloid Closet" is a great movie for that kind of info.
> 
> 
> 
> seen it, a real eye opener!
> it would give these homophobes a coronary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phobia is being afraid of something. I am not scared of homosexual bullies.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

bullshit! if you weren't then why do you make it your business to be in their business?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did you f****** idiot thou shall not murder
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where did he specifically say that about fetuses?
> 
> Quite the contrary, the bible calls for pregnant women to be killed if they violate God's other laws, therefore the bible did not see the fetus as a person.
> 
> God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.
> 
> And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
> (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
> 
> Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
> 
> Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
> 
> Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
> 
> The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
> And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
> 
> Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New American Standard Bible
> "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."Jeremiah 1:5
Click to expand...


So its your position that the bible is evidence justifying the state denying a woman her right to privacy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where did he specifically say that about fetuses?
> 
> Quite the contrary, the bible calls for pregnant women to be killed if they violate God's other laws, therefore the bible did not see the fetus as a person.
> 
> God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.
> 
> And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
> (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
> 
> Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
> 
> Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
> 
> Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
> 
> The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
> And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
> 
> Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New American Standard Bible
> "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."Jeremiah 1:5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So its your position that the bible is evidence justifying the state denying a woman her right to privacy.
Click to expand...


Why don't you ask Joe after all he was the one who used the bible


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we restrict rights based on mental disease or defect.   Sexual orientation is a right but behavior is not and we restrict behavior all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is progressive when trying to legislate morality..
Click to expand...


As opposed to all the other things we legislate BESIDES moral behavior . . . oh, wait, that's the ONLY thing we're attempting to legislate is moral behavior.  

Frigging leftist idiots.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Delta4Embassy said:


> "How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?"
> 
> I always thought that was said to be ironic since that same document mentions slaves as only being 3/5ths a free person. I think they meant "All affluent white men." Notice women at that time couldn't vote or do much of anything else in addition to acknowledging slaves.



::sigh::  I'm so tired of hearing this "I can't be bothered to really think about the Constitution" piece of crap line.  The Constitution says NOTHING about personhood or equality under the law as regards slaves (OR women, for that matter).  It talks only about how to calculate the number of Representatives a state gets in the House.  And rather than somehow being a denigration of slaves or black people or whatever you're thinking, this was actually the ANTI-SLAVERY position, designed to keep slave states from having more power in the federal government.

Jesus.

As for "all men are created equal", that has nothing to do with affluence, color, who you choose to fuck, or anything else.  It has to do with the laws as written being applied to everyone equally.  That does NOT mean that you get a special law that makes the government equate your behavior with someone else's very different behavior.  It means that EVERYONE engaging in THIS particular behavior in THIS particular way gets the law applied in the same way.  That means that, rich or poor, THIS is the definition of murder for which you will be tried if sufficient evidence is provided and THESE are the sentencing guidelines which will be applied if you are convicted.

And it means that EVERYONE meeting THESE specific criteria will be considered married, and everyone who DOESN'T will not be.  Please note that the criteria do not anywhere say a damned word about "being in love", because no one gives a shit but you.

Oh, and FYI, women were denied voting rights by STATE laws prior to the 19th Amendment, not by the Constitution.  Be nice if people would bother to READ the damned thing before presuming to talk about it.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I see that the discussion is still about the Bible. I've read it..three times. It's dull, but violent and x-rated.Personally, I prefer Steven King.True, he is a hack writer, but one does feel the urge to turn the page to see what happens next. I do think that putting a Bible in hotel rooms is a good idea. It is a great cure for insomnia.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?"
> 
> I always thought that was said to be ironic since that same document mentions slaves as only being 3/5ths a free person. I think they meant "All affluent white men." Notice women at that time couldn't vote or do much of anything else in addition to acknowledging slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason several radical republican women want to go make the USA like it was before women's suffrage.
Click to expand...


Maybe they've spent time actually talking to liberal women, and realized what a waste of voting rights they are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's obvious to me that people who make anti-gay remarks, just don't know any gay people. They're talking from a limited, bigoted upbringing



Obvious to you because . . . ?


----------



## Cecilie1200

velvtacheeze said:


> It was inevitable that one of them would say something offensive, and need to be taught a lesson.



And what lesson is that?  How to ignore sniveling PC warriors?  I think they already know that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AceRothstein said:


> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?



Please refresh my memory of conservatives demanding that the Dixie Chicks' record label drop their contract immediately, because I only recall _individual people_ choosing to stop buying their music and/or destroying the CDs they had.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stephanie said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am gay and I think this was a stupid decision, Pole Rider......but feel free to broad brush all your fellow gay Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always feel the need to inform us that you're gay? We all already know this you don't have to keep telling us.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no kidding...we all need to start our post, hi, I'm straight, I'm black, I'm rich, I'm poor..
> Gay Amercians...holy smokes...I'm short, so I guess that makes me a, short Amercian...good frikken grief
Click to expand...


Hi, I'm . . . completely not giving a rat's ass about labels.

I think that's about as good as it's going to get.


----------



## Pogo

Cecilie1200 said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please refresh my memory of conservatives demanding that the Dixie Chicks' record label drop their contract immediately, because I only recall _individual people_ choosing to stop buying their music and/or destroying the CDs they had.
Click to expand...


"Individual people" huh?

>> They disappeared from playlists and became the object of abuse from talk show hosts and newspaper columnists. Maines apologised, say ing: "Whoever holds that office [the presidency] should be treated with the utmost respect." That has not been enough for some.

Now Maines needs 24-hour security outside her home. The other two members of the band have also felt the heat: trash has been dumped outside the home of Emily Robison and the tour driver of Martie Maguire has resigned. The rightwing country singer, Toby Keith, is using a backdrop of Maines and Saddam Hussein.  << (here); 

>> Meanwhile, Dixie Chicks were preparing for their nationwide Top of the World Tour; some general death threats led them to install metal detectors at the shows. ...The degree of hatred directed toward the Chicks included a specific death threat against Maines in Dallas that led to a police escort to the July 6 show and from the show directly to the airport. << (here) and (here)

>> Emily Robison, who plays banjo and guitar in the Texas trio, says, &#8220;There was one specific death threat on Natalie. [It] had a time, had a place, had a weapon. I mean, everything. ...&#8216;You will be shot dead at your show in Dallas.&#8221;&#8217;
The band flew into Dallas, &#8220;went straight from the police cars to the stage and straight from the stage back to the police cars and back to the plane,&#8221; Maines says. &#8220;So, you know, it was all surreal. But at that stage, everything was surreal.&#8221; << (here)

>> COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- While the anti-Dixie Chicks backlash seems to have died down in most of the United States, one Colorado radio station is keeping the ban fires burning.

Country station KKCS, in Colorado Springs, has suspended two of its disc jockeys for putting the Chicks back on the air, in violation of a ban imposed after the group criticized President George W. Bush. << (here)

>> Country superstars the Dixie Chicks have been dropped from many US radio playlists after one of the singers criticised President Bush's stance on Iraq. << (BBC)

>> WDAF-AM in Kansas City, Missouri, encouraged listeners to toss their Dixie Chicks CDs into garbage cans set up outside their studio. The Dixie Chicks were dropped from WTDR-FM in Talladega, Alambama.

In Shreveport, Louisiana, protestors used a tractor to smash CDs and other Dixie Chicks items. The local country station, KRMD-FM, susequently dropped all Dixie Chicks songs. The same goes for KIZN-FM in Boise, Idaho - and that's just a small sampling. << (here)

Dixie Chicks Banned from Air after Bashing Bush ...
Radio Stations Boycott Dixie Chicks ...

Feeling "refreshed" yet?


How 'bout this bunch of "individual people"?
It's kinda weird that for a bunch of individuals who just happened upon a community bonfire, they still have a guy with a mic leading the whole affair...


----------



## Iceman

Doesn't seem anyone demanded they be dropped from their record label.

Thanks for clarifying the points Cecilie made.


----------



## Pogo

Iceman said:


> Doesn't seem anyone demanded they be dropped from their record label.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying the points Cecilie made.



So besides Nazi racist and asshole you're adding moron to the rèsumè too.  Good, run with that.

The original comment was:





AceRothstein said:


> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?



-- which Cecilie tried to channel down into a narrow record label question because she knew she'd lose on the merits.  Record label isn't an analogy; recording artists depend on radio and concerts, which is immediate, daily and weekly.  A TV show presents a new episode every week; nobody puts out a record every week.  That comparison is stupid.

Actually all she's doing there is echoing the blogosphere, which knows it can't win this point on a fair comparison.  That's why she tried to specify record label.

You know about as much about the music bidness as I do about being a Nazi.  Better to stay with what you know there Eißmann.


----------



## hunarcy

Cecilie1200 said:


> Please refresh my memory of conservatives demanding that the Dixie Chicks' record label drop their contract immediately, because I only recall _individual people_ choosing to stop buying their music and/or destroying the CDs they had.



But, don't you realize that by not buying their music and/or destroying the CDs they had, they were behaving the same way as GLAAD when they began to research Phil Robertson's life to ensure they could contact everyone he's ever been a sponsor for in his life?

No, I don't see the parallel either, but that's how those on the Left try to color it.


----------



## Iceman

Pogo said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem anyone demanded they be dropped from their record label.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying the points Cecilie made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So besides Nazi racist and asshole you're adding moron to the rèsumè too.  Good, run with that.
> 
> The original comment was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- which Cecilie tried to channel down into a narrow record label question because she knew she'd lose on the merits.  Record label isn't an analogy; recording artists depend on radio and concerts, which is immediate, daily and weekly.  A TV show presents a new episode every week; nobody puts out a record every week.  That comparison is stupid.
> 
> Actually all she's doing there is echoing the blogosphere, which knows it can't win this point on a fair comparison.  That's why she tried to specify record label.
> 
> You know about as much about the music bidness as I do about being a Nazi.  Better to stay with what you know there Eißmann.
Click to expand...


No one called for them to be removed from radio stations, the radio stations just removed them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> I see that the discussion is still about the Bible. I've read it..three times. It's dull, but violent and x-rated.Personally, I prefer Steven King.True, he is a hack writer, but one does feel the urge to turn the page to see what happens next. I do think that putting a Bible in hotel rooms is a good idea. It is a great cure for insomnia.



Sort of like your company?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please refresh my memory of conservatives demanding that the Dixie Chicks' record label drop their contract immediately, because I only recall _individual people_ choosing to stop buying their music and/or destroying the CDs they had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Individual people" huh?
> 
> >> They disappeared from playlists and became the object of abuse from talk show hosts and newspaper columnists. Maines apologised, say ing: "Whoever holds that office [the presidency] should be treated with the utmost respect." That has not been enough for some.
Click to expand...


Ooh, nooes!  People talked about what happened!  It was NEWS!

Still don't see anyone demanding that they be dropped from their record labels or otherwise deprived of their jobs.

Disappeared from playlists?  Yeah, it's like radio stations make money by playing WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR, and no one wanted to hear them.  That's what happens when you piss off your fans.  But again, I don't remember any organized demands to the radio stations to ban them from their playlists.



Pogo said:


> Now Maines needs 24-hour security outside her home. The other two members of the band have also felt the heat: trash has been dumped outside the home of Emily Robison and the tour driver of Martie Maguire has resigned. The rightwing country singer, Toby Keith, is using a backdrop of Maines and Saddam Hussein.  << (here);



Maines needs 24-hour security?  Oh, please.  For what?  No one remembers her, or cares.  If it makes her feel important and persecuted to pay that extra money, that's her business, but don't tell me she "needs" it without providing some evidence beyond her own ego and delusions.

Trash?  Really?  That's supposed to equal an organized protest to have her fired?  I don't think so.

Her tour driver quit?  Awwww.  So what?  People quit jobs.

Last time I checked, Toby Keith qualifies as an "individual person expressing his personal opinion".

I guess this is what one gets when one is stupid enough to read "The Guardian" and then get one's panties in a ruffle on cue when they shout, "Be outraged!"



Pogo said:


> >> Meanwhile, Dixie Chicks were preparing for their nationwide Top of the World Tour; some general death threats led them to install metal detectors at the shows. ...The degree of hatred directed toward the Chicks included a specific death threat against Maines in Dallas that led to a police escort to the July 6 show and from the show directly to the airport. << (here) and (here)



"General death threats"?  What the fuck is THAT?  "Hey, let's try to capitalize on the controversy by pretending we're besieged"?  I'm seeing nothing here but rumors and conjectures and delusions of grandeur on the part of a trio of really ignorant twats who misjudged their own fan base.

And Wikipedia?  Dumbass, please.  



Pogo said:


> >> Emily Robison, who plays banjo and guitar in the Texas trio, says, There was one specific death threat on Natalie. [It] had a time, had a place, had a weapon. I mean, everything. ...You will be shot dead at your show in Dallas.
> The band flew into Dallas, went straight from the police cars to the stage and straight from the stage back to the police cars and back to the plane, Maines says. So, you know, it was all surreal. But at that stage, everything was surreal. << (here)



"Oooh, we felt SOOOOO abused and put-upon.  No, we have no proof.  Just believe me that I'm a victim!"



Pogo said:


> >> COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- While the anti-Dixie Chicks backlash seems to have died down in most of the United States, one Colorado radio station is keeping the ban fires burning.
> 
> Country station KKCS, in Colorado Springs, has suspended two of its disc jockeys for putting the Chicks back on the air, in violation of a ban imposed after the group criticized President George W. Bush. << (here)



Show me the protesters, the call for boycotts, the threats to advertisers demanding that this radio station pull the Dixie Chicks from the air.  No?  The business decided what to do on its own?  Then I guess we're back where we always are with you:  shut the fuck up, you whining moron.



Pogo said:


> >> Country superstars the Dixie Chicks have been dropped from many US radio playlists after one of the singers criticised President Bush's stance on Iraq. << (BBC)



Again, show me the protesters, the call for boycotts, the threats to advertisers, the attempts to FORCE these stations to change their behavior.  You're probably too damned dirt-stupid to tell the difference between volitional business choices and extortion, but I'm not.



Pogo said:


> >> WDAF-AM in Kansas City, Missouri, encouraged listeners to toss their Dixie Chicks CDs into garbage cans set up outside their studio. The Dixie Chicks were dropped from WTDR-FM in Talladega, Alambama.



So what you're saying is that it was THE EXACT OPPOSITE of leftist behavior:  instead of a loudly-whinging minority of people making demands and forcing their will on the business, the business capitalized on the controversy and voluntarily chose to take a side and made suggestions to the people.

Well, thanks for proving what I said earlier:  you're an idiot.



Pogo said:


> In Shreveport, Louisiana, protestors used a tractor to smash CDs and other Dixie Chicks items. The local country station, KRMD-FM, susequently dropped all Dixie Chicks songs. The same goes for KIZN-FM in Boise, Idaho - and that's just a small sampling. << (here)



Yeah, that falls under the heading of "individual people destroying their own property", like I said, shitforbrains.  Since I don't see anything about "under increasing pressure from protest groups" regarding the radio stations - and haven't seen it a single time so far - I'm going to assume that, in fact, you have no evidence of anyone doing anything of the sort, and ignore such bullshit from here on.




Pogo said:


> Dixie Chicks Banned from Air after Bashing Bush ...
> Radio Stations Boycott Dixie Chicks ...
> 
> Feeling "refreshed" yet?
> 
> 
> How 'bout this bunch of "individual people"?
> It's kinda weird that for a bunch of individuals who just happened upon a community bonfire, they still have a guy with a mic leading the whole affair...



Who said anything about "happened upon"?  Amazingly enough, a group of people voluntarily agreeing to get together and destroy their own property actually qualifies as - let me know if this is going too fast for you - "individual people destroying their own property".  I never said a fucking thing about spontaneous coincidences,  I'm not interested in your desire to impose that particular random benchmark on what I said, and thank you for this entire, long-winded pissing and moaning that proved me EXACTLY right . . . not that it was needed.

To sum up, you're a fucking moron.  Shut up until you figure out how to make your contradictions actually contradict something.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pogo said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem anyone demanded they be dropped from their record label.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying the points Cecilie made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So besides Nazi racist and asshole you're adding moron to the rèsumè too.  Good, run with that.
> 
> The original comment was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- which Cecilie tried to channel down into a narrow record label question because she knew she'd lose on the merits.  Record label isn't an analogy; recording artists depend on radio and concerts, which is immediate, daily and weekly.  A TV show presents a new episode every week; nobody puts out a record every week.  That comparison is stupid.
> 
> Actually all she's doing there is echoing the blogosphere, which knows it can't win this point on a fair comparison.  That's why she tried to specify record label.
> 
> You know about as much about the music bidness as I do about being a Nazi.  Better to stay with what you know there Eißmann.
Click to expand...


Yes, remember people criticizing the Dixie Chicks, which bore NO RESEMBLANCE to the way the left "criticizes" people.  See, the poster most likely knew that he was drawing an analogy between the two behaviors, which opens the post to an analysis of whether or not such an analogy exists - which it doesn't, and which I have now proven, with your unwitting and witless help.  The fact that YOU didn't know what he was saying or what purpose his comment served in this thread in no way binds the rest of us to your level of reading incomprehension.

Keep talking, fool.  I'm still laughing.


----------



## hunarcy

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please refresh my memory of conservatives demanding that the Dixie Chicks' record label drop their contract immediately, because I only recall _individual people_ choosing to stop buying their music and/or destroying the CDs they had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Individual people" huh?
> 
> >> They disappeared from playlists and became the object of abuse from talk show hosts and newspaper columnists. Maines apologised, say ing: "Whoever holds that office [the presidency] should be treated with the utmost respect." That has not been enough for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooh, nooes!  People talked about what happened!  It was NEWS!
> 
> Still don't see anyone demanding that they be dropped from their record labels or otherwise deprived of their jobs.
> 
> Disappeared from playlists?  Yeah, it's like radio stations make money by playing WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR, and no one wanted to hear them.  That's what happens when you piss off your fans.  But again, I don't remember any organized demands to the radio stations to ban them from their playlists.
> 
> 
> 
> Maines needs 24-hour security?  Oh, please.  For what?  No one remembers her, or cares.  If it makes her feel important and persecuted to pay that extra money, that's her business, but don't tell me she "needs" it without providing some evidence beyond her own ego and delusions.
> 
> Trash?  Really?  That's supposed to equal an organized protest to have her fired?  I don't think so.
> 
> Her tour driver quit?  Awwww.  So what?  People quit jobs.
> 
> Last time I checked, Toby Keith qualifies as an "individual person expressing his personal opinion".
> 
> I guess this is what one gets when one is stupid enough to read "The Guardian" and then get one's panties in a ruffle on cue when they shout, "Be outraged!"
> 
> 
> 
> "General death threats"?  What the fuck is THAT?  "Hey, let's try to capitalize on the controversy by pretending we're besieged"?  I'm seeing nothing here but rumors and conjectures and delusions of grandeur on the part of a trio of really ignorant twats who misjudged their own fan base.
> 
> And Wikipedia?  Dumbass, please.
> 
> 
> 
> "Oooh, we felt SOOOOO abused and put-upon.  No, we have no proof.  Just believe me that I'm a victim!"
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the protesters, the call for boycotts, the threats to advertisers demanding that this radio station pull the Dixie Chicks from the air.  No?  The business decided what to do on its own?  Then I guess we're back where we always are with you:  shut the fuck up, you whining moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, show me the protesters, the call for boycotts, the threats to advertisers, the attempts to FORCE these stations to change their behavior.  You're probably too damned dirt-stupid to tell the difference between volitional business choices and extortion, but I'm not.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that it was THE EXACT OPPOSITE of leftist behavior:  instead of a loudly-whinging minority of people making demands and forcing their will on the business, the business capitalized on the controversy and voluntarily chose to take a side and made suggestions to the people.
> 
> Well, thanks for proving what I said earlier:  you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Shreveport, Louisiana, protestors used a tractor to smash CDs and other Dixie Chicks items. The local country station, KRMD-FM, susequently dropped all Dixie Chicks songs. The same goes for KIZN-FM in Boise, Idaho - and that's just a small sampling. << (here)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that falls under the heading of "individual people destroying their own property", like I said, shitforbrains.  Since I don't see anything about "under increasing pressure from protest groups" regarding the radio stations - and haven't seen it a single time so far - I'm going to assume that, in fact, you have no evidence of anyone doing anything of the sort, and ignore such bullshit from here on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dixie Chicks Banned from Air after Bashing Bush ...
> Radio Stations Boycott Dixie Chicks ...
> 
> Feeling "refreshed" yet?
> 
> 
> How 'bout this bunch of "individual people"?
> It's kinda weird that for a bunch of individuals who just happened upon a community bonfire, they still have a guy with a mic leading the whole affair...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about "happened upon"?  Amazingly enough, a group of people voluntarily agreeing to get together and destroy their own property actually qualifies as - let me know if this is going too fast for you - "individual people destroying their own property".  I never said a fucking thing about spontaneous coincidences,  I'm not interested in your desire to impose that particular random benchmark on what I said, and thank you for this entire, long-winded pissing and moaning that proved me EXACTLY right . . . not that it was needed.
> 
> To sum up, you're a fucking moron.  Shut up until you figure out how to make your contradictions actually contradict something.
Click to expand...


You should have asked what the picture of people back in the 60's had to do with the Dixie Chicks.


----------



## Pogo

Woooo... I hit quite the nerve huh?  Meltdown much?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Quick summary:


> Dumbass, please.
> shut the fuck up, you whining moron.
> You're probably too damned dirt-stupid
> you're an idiot.
> To sum up, you're a fucking moron. Shut up



---- Because it's all about free speech!  


Hey - if the answer you can't handle is gonna give you a self-indulgent diaper rash --- then don't ask the question.


----------



## Pogo

Cecilie1200 said:


> no one wanted to hear them


"no one".  Not one person.  Even though they had #10 on the charts, "no one".   



Cecilie1200 said:


> That's what happens when you piss off your fans


"Piss off your fans" by expressing an opinion.  Again, all people think alike, so this would "piss off your fans".



Cecilie1200 said:


> But again, I don't remember any organized demands to the radio stations to ban them from their playlists


- then why did they do it?  You just contradicted the above.  Nicely played. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> Maines needs 24-hour security?  Oh, please.  For what?  No one remembers her, or cares.  If it makes her feel important and persecuted to pay that extra money, that's her business, but don't tell me she "needs" it without providing some evidence beyond her own ego and delusions.


Because death threats are hilarious.
Why would you or I need evidence that a third party got death threats?  DUH.

Nevertheless, carefully excised out of the post was, again:
&#8220;There was one specific death threat on Natalie. [It] had a time, had a place, had a weapon. I mean, everything. ...*&#8216;You will be shot dead at your show in Dallas.&#8221;*&#8217;



Cecilie1200 said:


> Last time I checked, Toby Keith qualifies as an "individual person expressing his personal opinion".


---- and?  Last time I checked so does Natalie Maines.

Matter of fact so does Merle Haggard:
"I don't even know the Dixie Chicks, but I find it an insult for all men and women who fought and died in past wars when almost the majority of America jumped down their throats for voicing an opinion. It was like a verbal witch-hunt and lynching."

Gaa!  Quick, get the hammer on the Haggard records!  He's "stupid", like the Guardian!



Cecilie1200 said:


> I guess this is what one gets when one is stupid enough to read "The Guardian" and then get one's panties in a ruffle on cue when they shout, "Be outraged!"


Anyone who reads out of my approved list is "stupid".  Anything I can't refute is "stupid"!!





Cecilie1200 said:


> And Wikipedia?  Dumbass, please.


Can't address the point, shoot the messenger.  
Oh wait, you didn't shoot shit.  You just said "Dumbass please".  My bad; that's not poisoning the well, that's simple ad hominem.  Empty argument either way.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Show me the protesters, the call for boycotts, the threats to advertisers demanding that this radio station pull the Dixie Chicks from the air.  No?  The business decided what to do on its own?  Then I guess we're back where we always are with you:  shut the fuck up, you whining moron.


Ad homimem; subtract credibilitum.  Big time here.

But _*do*_ go on...


Cecilie1200 said:


> You're probably too damned dirt-stupid to tell the difference between volitional business choices and extortion, but I'm not.


Ditto above.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






Cecilie1200 said:


> So what you're saying is that it was THE EXACT OPPOSITE of leftist behavior:  instead of a loudly-whinging minority of people making demands and forcing their will on the business, the business capitalized on the controversy and voluntarily chose to take a side and made suggestions to the people.


So what I'm saying is addressing the original comment:


AceRothstein said:


> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?



-- looks like he nailed it, because your little hissyfit four-year-old meltdown here is indeed nothing short of hilarious.  All the resounding rhetorical persuasion of a stream of bat's piss.

  Sucks to be you I guess.  And it sux to ask a question and not be ready for the answer. 

Merry Christmas Eve.  Santa might be a bit late -- he's got to pick up extra coal for your house.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Well, I didn't support banning them:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojL_35QlSI]Dixie Chicks - Not Ready To Make Nice - YouTube[/ame]

But then that kind of goes with my way of thinking, anyway. During the histera over fur coats by PETTA, I bought my wife a silver fox coat.....


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem anyone demanded they be dropped from their record label.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying the points Cecilie made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So besides Nazi racist and asshole you're adding moron to the rèsumè too.  Good, run with that.
> 
> The original comment was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative outrage here is hilarious.  Remember their reaction to the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush 10 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- which Cecilie tried to channel down into a narrow record label question because she knew she'd lose on the merits.  Record label isn't an analogy; recording artists depend on radio and concerts, which is immediate, daily and weekly.  A TV show presents a new episode every week; nobody puts out a record every week.  That comparison is stupid.
> 
> Actually all she's doing there is echoing the blogosphere, which knows it can't win this point on a fair comparison.  That's why she tried to specify record label.
> 
> You know about as much about the music bidness as I do about being a Nazi.  Better to stay with what you know there Eißmann.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one called for them to be removed from radio stations, the radio stations just removed them.
Click to expand...

bullshit! again your total ignorance about the entertainment bizz is hilarious..


----------



## Iceman

daws101 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So besides Nazi racist and asshole you're adding moron to the rèsumè too.  Good, run with that.
> 
> The original comment was:
> 
> -- which Cecilie tried to channel down into a narrow record label question because she knew she'd lose on the merits.  Record label isn't an analogy; recording artists depend on radio and concerts, which is immediate, daily and weekly.  A TV show presents a new episode every week; nobody puts out a record every week.  That comparison is stupid.
> 
> Actually all she's doing there is echoing the blogosphere, which knows it can't win this point on a fair comparison.  That's why she tried to specify record label.
> 
> You know about as much about the music bidness as I do about being a Nazi.  Better to stay with what you know there Eißmann.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one called for them to be removed from radio stations, the radio stations just removed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! again your total ignorance about the entertainment bizz is hilarious..
Click to expand...


Some stations don't like having hippy dipshits on their station, what can I say?


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one called for them to be removed from radio stations, the radio stations just removed them.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! again your total ignorance about the entertainment bizz is hilarious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some stations don't like having hippy dipshits on their station, what can I say?
Click to expand...

and you'd be talking out your ass....radio stations tailor their music to a targeted demographic..
as you said so ignorantly "  hippy dipshits" any radio station that plays " hippy dipshits" music was programmed to do so...what a douche nozzle.


----------



## HenryBHough

All these cries for censorship are premature.

You libs need to give Your New Messiah a little longer to consolidate His dictatorship then simple executive orders will accomplish all the muzzling for which you so Jones but Congress will not accept.

Patience, boys and girls, patience.....


----------



## Iceman

daws101 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! again your total ignorance about the entertainment bizz is hilarious..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some stations don't like having hippy dipshits on their station, what can I say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you'd be talking out your ass....radio stations tailor their music to a targeted demographic..
> as you said so ignorantly "  hippy dipshits" any radio station that plays " hippy dipshits" music was programmed to do so...what a douche nozzle.
Click to expand...


Exactly, hippy dipshits weren't their demographic, so they booted the Dixie Chicks.

Why you mad?


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some stations don't like having hippy dipshits on their station, what can I say?
> 
> 
> 
> and you'd be talking out your ass....radio stations tailor their music to a targeted demographic..
> as you said so ignorantly "  hippy dipshits" any radio station that plays " hippy dipshits" music was programmed to do so...what a douche nozzle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, hippy dipshits weren't their demographic, so they booted the Dixie Chicks.
> 
> Why you mad?
Click to expand...

not mad or angry ...if the dixie chicks were not in the demographic they would not be aired on a non hippy dipshit station..
do you enjoy being wrong?


----------



## Iceman

daws101 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you'd be talking out your ass....radio stations tailor their music to a targeted demographic..
> as you said so ignorantly "  hippy dipshits" any radio station that plays " hippy dipshits" music was programmed to do so...what a douche nozzle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, hippy dipshits weren't their demographic, so they booted the Dixie Chicks.
> 
> Why you mad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not mad or angry ...if the dixie chicks were not in the demographic they would not be aired on a non hippy dipshit station..
> do you enjoy being wrong?
Click to expand...


And they weren't aired. There you go.


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, hippy dipshits weren't their demographic, so they booted the Dixie Chicks.
> 
> Why you mad?
> 
> 
> 
> not mad or angry ...if the dixie chicks were not in the demographic they would not be aired on a non hippy dipshit station..
> do you enjoy being wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they weren't aired. There you go.
Click to expand...

of course they were they never stopped being played here in California... yep you enjoy it!


----------



## Iceman

What's the suicide rate out there in Ontario? I have only stopped to get gas or use the restroom on the way to Vegas. What's it like living there?


----------



## Vandalshandle

I think that it is always a good idea to keep Bush supporters seperate. Bush's mind works in stange ways, and it might be catching. As "Dan" Quayle once said, "A mind is a terrible thing to lose".


----------



## Pogo

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind... or not to have a mind as being very wasteful.  How true that is".

--- Vice President of the United States of America, grasping for the United Negro College Fund's slogan "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".





Can't blame him -- out of the four words _United Negro College Fund_ he was only familiar with the last one.


----------



## daws101

Iceman said:


> What's the suicide rate out there in Ontario? I have only stopped to get gas or use the restroom on the way to Vegas. What's it like living there?


wow that was underwhelming


----------



## American_Jihad

"oh lordy, I gots to figure out a way to get some of dat A&E and cracker barrel loot"

*Jesse Jackson Calls 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson 'More Offensive' Than Rosa Parks' Bus Driver*​
6:51 AM PST 12/26/2013 by Hilary Lewis 

The civil-rights activist and religious leader also wants to meet with A&E and Cracker Barrel about the future of content and memorabilia associated with the show following the star's controversial comments about gays and African-Americans.

...

A&E placed Robertson on indefinite suspension shortly after his remarks, published in the magazine's January issue, debuted online. But Jackson, his Rainbow PUSH Coalition and GLAAD, which condemned Robertson's remarks and commended A&E for its swift action against the Duck Dynasty star, want to meet with network executives about the future of the show, according to ABC News. They also want to meet with the CEO of Cracker Barrel, which pulled all Duck Dynasty memorabilia last Friday before backtracking two days later.

...

Jesse Jackson Calls 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson 'More Offensive' Than Rosa Parks' Bus Driver - The Hollywood Reporter


----------



## Politico

Good ole Jesse. Never miss a chance for a soundbite.


----------



## Cecilie1200

hunarcy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Individual people" huh?
> 
> >> They disappeared from playlists and became the object of abuse from talk show hosts and newspaper columnists. Maines apologised, say ing: "Whoever holds that office [the presidency] should be treated with the utmost respect." That has not been enough for some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, nooes!  People talked about what happened!  It was NEWS!
> 
> Still don't see anyone demanding that they be dropped from their record labels or otherwise deprived of their jobs.
> 
> Disappeared from playlists?  Yeah, it's like radio stations make money by playing WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR, and no one wanted to hear them.  That's what happens when you piss off your fans.  But again, I don't remember any organized demands to the radio stations to ban them from their playlists.
> 
> 
> 
> Maines needs 24-hour security?  Oh, please.  For what?  No one remembers her, or cares.  If it makes her feel important and persecuted to pay that extra money, that's her business, but don't tell me she "needs" it without providing some evidence beyond her own ego and delusions.
> 
> Trash?  Really?  That's supposed to equal an organized protest to have her fired?  I don't think so.
> 
> Her tour driver quit?  Awwww.  So what?  People quit jobs.
> 
> Last time I checked, Toby Keith qualifies as an "individual person expressing his personal opinion".
> 
> I guess this is what one gets when one is stupid enough to read "The Guardian" and then get one's panties in a ruffle on cue when they shout, "Be outraged!"
> 
> 
> 
> "General death threats"?  What the fuck is THAT?  "Hey, let's try to capitalize on the controversy by pretending we're besieged"?  I'm seeing nothing here but rumors and conjectures and delusions of grandeur on the part of a trio of really ignorant twats who misjudged their own fan base.
> 
> And Wikipedia?  Dumbass, please.
> 
> 
> 
> "Oooh, we felt SOOOOO abused and put-upon.  No, we have no proof.  Just believe me that I'm a victim!"
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the protesters, the call for boycotts, the threats to advertisers demanding that this radio station pull the Dixie Chicks from the air.  No?  The business decided what to do on its own?  Then I guess we're back where we always are with you:  shut the fuck up, you whining moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, show me the protesters, the call for boycotts, the threats to advertisers, the attempts to FORCE these stations to change their behavior.  You're probably too damned dirt-stupid to tell the difference between volitional business choices and extortion, but I'm not.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that it was THE EXACT OPPOSITE of leftist behavior:  instead of a loudly-whinging minority of people making demands and forcing their will on the business, the business capitalized on the controversy and voluntarily chose to take a side and made suggestions to the people.
> 
> Well, thanks for proving what I said earlier:  you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that falls under the heading of "individual people destroying their own property", like I said, shitforbrains.  Since I don't see anything about "under increasing pressure from protest groups" regarding the radio stations - and haven't seen it a single time so far - I'm going to assume that, in fact, you have no evidence of anyone doing anything of the sort, and ignore such bullshit from here on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dixie Chicks Banned from Air after Bashing Bush ...
> Radio Stations Boycott Dixie Chicks ...
> 
> Feeling "refreshed" yet?
> 
> 
> How 'bout this bunch of "individual people"?
> It's kinda weird that for a bunch of individuals who just happened upon a community bonfire, they still have a guy with a mic leading the whole affair...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about "happened upon"?  Amazingly enough, a group of people voluntarily agreeing to get together and destroy their own property actually qualifies as - let me know if this is going too fast for you - "individual people destroying their own property".  I never said a fucking thing about spontaneous coincidences,  I'm not interested in your desire to impose that particular random benchmark on what I said, and thank you for this entire, long-winded pissing and moaning that proved me EXACTLY right . . . not that it was needed.
> 
> To sum up, you're a fucking moron.  Shut up until you figure out how to make your contradictions actually contradict something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should have asked what the picture of people back in the 60's had to do with the Dixie Chicks.
Click to expand...


That would have required me to pay enough attention to his post to actually look at the picture he linked, and my give-a-fuck wore out about two sentences before that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Interesting story update:

*Cracker Barrel pulls &#8220;Duck Dynasty&#8221; merchandise, then remembers who its customers are*

_If there&#8217;s been a more embarrassing example of a corporation reflexively bowing before a small pressure group, then getting its boardroom butt kicked by angry customers and reversing their decision, I don&#8217;t know what it might be.

Having apparently gone temporarily insane and forgotten who their customer base is, down-home country restaurant chain Cracker Barrel hastily decided to yank &#8220;Duck Dynasty&#8221; merchandise off the shelves, because avowed Christian Phil Robertson decided to avow his Christianity in public, and also revealed himself as a blatant out-and-proud heterosexual.  For some reason, Christians haven&#8217;t gotten the message that their religion must be practiced only in basements and remote, secluded areas; they&#8217;re not allowed to discuss it openly and retain access to the public square.  I guess they&#8217;re still hung up on all that &#8220;freedom of religion&#8221; stuff the powdered-wig guys scribbled into the Constitution with their quill pens.

&#8220;We removed selected products which we were concerned might offend some of our guests while we evaluate the situation,&#8221; the company said in a statement, declaring that their corporate mission is &#8220;pleasing people,&#8221; which means they &#8220;operate within the ideals of fairness, mutual respect, and equal treatment of all people.&#8221;

Except Christians, of course.  They seem to have noticed there was no impulse to treat them with &#8220;respect,&#8221; and they weren&#8217;t happy about it.  They made their displeasure known to the company in what must have been epic volume, because just two days after ordering the Robertson family erased from its stores, Cracker Barrel issued one of the most amazing statements of apology you&#8217;ll ever read:

    Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

    When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that&#8217;s just what we&#8217;ve done.

    You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren&#8217;t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

    We listened.

    Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.

    And, we apologize for offending you.

    We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

    We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family._

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/12/...handise-then-remembers-who-its-customers-are/

Whoops.


----------



## American_Jihad

*'Duck Dynasty': A&E resuming show with Phil Robertson*

Dec. 27, 2013, 5:39 PM EST
By Tim Molloy
TheWrap






"Duck Dynasty" supporters have won their standoff with A&E: The network  has reversed its suspension of star Phil Robertson for making anti-gay comments, and he will not miss a single episode of the upcoming season.

Shooting will resume in the spring, and will be accompanied by a series of public service announcements "promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company, and the values found in 'Duck Dynasty,'" the network said.

The network suspended Robertson last Thursday after he compared gays to "drunks" and "terrorists" in a GQ interview in which he also said African-Americans were perfectly happy before Civil Rights.

But the network suffered a huge backlash from "Duck Dynasty" fans and social conservatives, who said it had limited Robertson's right to free speech.

*Also from TheWrap: 'Duck Dynasty': Twitter Apologizes for 'Mistakenly' Blocking IStandWithPhil.com*
...

'Duck Dynasty': A&E Resuming Show With Phil Robertson - MSN TV News


----------



## Wake

Finally, something successfully stood in the way of some incredibly sensitive and perpetually-outraged homosexuals.

The Redneck who Lived.


----------



## daws101

Wake said:


> Finally, something successfully stood in the way of some incredibly sensitive and perpetually-outraged homosexuals.
> 
> The Redneck who Lived.


you just keep telling yourselves that.....waiting for when you folks  realize you've been scammed.....


----------



## American_Jihad

*'Duck Dynasty': Willie and Korie Robertson line up Fox News interview*​
By Pamela Gocobachi on Dec 30, 2013

 The Robertson family has been keeping silent since the brief suspension of patriarch Phil Robertson from A&Es popular reality TV series Duck Dynasty, but that silence will soon be broken.

Fox News announced Monday that Willie and Korie Robertson will participate in the networks All-American New Year special, during which theyll be interviewed by Bill Hemmer and Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

The couple will be interviewed live from Steamboat Springs, Colorado, for their first television appearance since Phil was shortly suspended from the A&E reality show for the comments he made on homosexuality; Willie and Korie are slated to discuss the topic of Phils suspension among other things during Fox News New Years Eve programming.

While there was some question surrounding whether the Robertsons would be back for another season of Duck Dynasty without Phil, A&E quickly put those rumors to rest when Phils suspension was lifted on Dec. 27.

...

'Duck Dynasty': Willie and Korie Robertson line up Fox News interview | Inside TV | EW.com


----------



## thanatos144

Do you know why Liberals dont understand the Robertson's? It isn't their religion they just think that's a hoax no they dont understand the family unit. Most come from a broken family or one like mine where we all live in different states and dont get together all the time. The liberal machine has destroyed the family and now when they see what a real family looks like they are puzzled by it. Yes progressives this is what most families used to look like before we taught our boys they didn't need to respect women and our girls that being a whore meant personal power.


----------



## Katzndogz

What liberals really hate is that they are all married.


----------



## American_Jihad

Esmeralda said:


> ItsOnlyMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone were fired for thinking or even saying anything against gays, we'd be at 95% unemployment.  If I were in Phil's shoes, I'd make no more mention of this, and simply sever ties with A&E and move on to another network. or take my money and retire.  Unfortunately all this does is once again fuel the idea that the poor gays are "victims" once again.  I am sick of it.  It plays right into the gays' hands. Once again they are center of attention. They are eating it up.  And just because someone doesn't think being "gay" is normal, that doesn't mean we hate them or fear them (don't make me laugh!) or anything else.  *It is just not normal.  Period*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. *Animals engage in same sex sexual activity*.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
Click to expand...


R U saying that homosexuals are like horny animals, SHAME on you... ​[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6_93gTYWmM]2 Live Crew - Me So Horny [Official Video] Dirty - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## DGS49

Ten percent of the population.

In San Francisco?

Your information is off by a factor of at east 6.

Kinsey, anyone?


----------



## HenryBHough

Once had two gay cats.

Named one John Fitzpatrick.
The other?
Patrick Fitzjohn

Thing that upset the neighbors was that they only performed on an old fence post in the front yard.


----------



## daws101

HenryBHough said:


> Once had two gay cats.
> 
> Named one John Fitzpatrick.
> The other?
> Patrick Fitzjohn
> 
> Thing that upset the neighbors was that they only performed on an old fence post in the front yard.


(cue rim shot) he's here all week, try the veal!.....


----------



## The Irish Ram

I have a rooster who tries to have sex with a Pekin duck.  I'm not sure if the offspring will be rucks or dusters, but I'll bet they're delicious.......


----------



## Pogo

DGS49 said:


> Ten percent of the population.
> 
> In San Francisco?
> 
> Your information is off by a factor of at east 6.
> 
> Kinsey, anyone?



No thanks; I gotta drive.


----------



## Pogo

The Irish Ram said:


> I have a rooster who tries to have sex with a Pekin duck.  I'm not sure if the offspring will be rucks or dusters, but I'll bet they're delicious.......



Hey, that's nothing compared to what goes into making a turducken...


----------



## hunarcy

I hope everyone has a Happy and Safe New Year!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Esmeralda said:


> ItsOnlyMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone were fired for thinking or even saying anything against gays, we'd be at 95% unemployment.  If I were in Phil's shoes, I'd make no more mention of this, and simply sever ties with A&E and move on to another network. or take my money and retire.  Unfortunately all this does is once again fuel the idea that the poor gays are "victims" once again.  I am sick of it.  It plays right into the gays' hands. Once again they are center of attention. They are eating it up.  And just because someone doesn't think being "gay" is normal, that doesn't mean we hate them or fear them (don't make me laugh!) or anything else.  *It is just not normal.  Period*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
Click to expand...


I have never understood what other animals are supposed to have to do with anything in this discussion.  Earthworms are hermaphrodites; does that make hermaphroditism normal for humans?  Lizards can regenerate their tails if they lose them; does that mean humans can regenerate body parts?    Lions live in prides with one male and bunch of females; while I'm sure there are human men who would LOVE that arrangement, does it make that normal social behavior for human beings?

Seems to me the whole point of identifying thousands of different species is that they're _different_.  To try to say, "THIS species does this, therefore that is right and normal (in a scientific sense) for all species" is ridiculous.  And even those few species constantly touted by activists as exhibiting "homosexual behavior" only do so rarely, and under specific biological imperatives related to species survival.  I don't believe anyone has yet identified any specific reason that the human species would require such a biological imperative.  To put it bluntly, homosexual behavior in humans is of any use, scientifically speaking, to the species as a whole.


----------



## thanatos144

Cecilie1200 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ItsOnlyMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone were fired for thinking or even saying anything against gays, we'd be at 95% unemployment.  If I were in Phil's shoes, I'd make no more mention of this, and simply sever ties with A&E and move on to another network. or take my money and retire.  Unfortunately all this does is once again fuel the idea that the poor gays are "victims" once again.  I am sick of it.  It plays right into the gays' hands. Once again they are center of attention. They are eating it up.  And just because someone doesn't think being "gay" is normal, that doesn't mean we hate them or fear them (don't make me laugh!) or anything else.  *It is just not normal.  Period*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never understood what other animals are supposed to have to do with anything in this discussion.  Earthworms are hermaphrodites; does that make hermaphroditism normal for humans?  Lizards can regenerate their tails if they lose them; does that mean humans can regenerate body parts?    Lions live in prides with one male and bunch of females; while I'm sure there are human men who would LOVE that arrangement, does it make that normal social behavior for human beings?
> 
> Seems to me the whole point of identifying thousands of different species is that they're _different_.  To try to say, "THIS species does this, therefore that is right and normal (in a scientific sense) for all species" is ridiculous.  And even those few species constantly touted by activists as exhibiting "homosexual behavior" only do so rarely, and under specific biological imperatives related to species survival.  I don't believe anyone has yet identified any specific reason that the human species would require such a biological imperative.  To put it bluntly, homosexual behavior in humans is of any use, scientifically speaking, to the species as a whole.
Click to expand...


You must understand liberals think humans are nothing more than animals this way things like abortion promiscuous activities destruction the family doesn't have much meaning

tapatalk post


----------



## Wake

Pogo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a rooster who tries to have sex with a Pekin duck.  I'm not sure if the offspring will be rucks or dusters, but I'll bet they're delicious.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's nothing compared to what goes into making a turducken...
Click to expand...


A timely reference to the best season of Supernatural? I love it. 

IT'S IN THE MEAT.


----------



## Wake

And it ain't GLAAD!


----------



## Cecilie1200

thanatos144 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what is 'normal'?  Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity.  Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.'  Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never understood what other animals are supposed to have to do with anything in this discussion.  Earthworms are hermaphrodites; does that make hermaphroditism normal for humans?  Lizards can regenerate their tails if they lose them; does that mean humans can regenerate body parts?    Lions live in prides with one male and bunch of females; while I'm sure there are human men who would LOVE that arrangement, does it make that normal social behavior for human beings?
> 
> Seems to me the whole point of identifying thousands of different species is that they're _different_.  To try to say, "THIS species does this, therefore that is right and normal (in a scientific sense) for all species" is ridiculous.  And even those few species constantly touted by activists as exhibiting "homosexual behavior" only do so rarely, and under specific biological imperatives related to species survival.  I don't believe anyone has yet identified any specific reason that the human species would require such a biological imperative.  To put it bluntly, homosexual behavior in humans is of any use, scientifically speaking, to the species as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must understand liberals think humans are nothing more than animals this way things like abortion promiscuous activities destruction the family doesn't have much meaning
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Even if they want to view it strictly from the zoological "humans are animals" perspective, that doesn't change the fact that every species is different, and for good reasons.  The sexual behavior of one is not necessarily analogous to another.


----------



## thanatos144

Cecilie1200 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never understood what other animals are supposed to have to do with anything in this discussion.  Earthworms are hermaphrodites; does that make hermaphroditism normal for humans?  Lizards can regenerate their tails if they lose them; does that mean humans can regenerate body parts?    Lions live in prides with one male and bunch of females; while I'm sure there are human men who would LOVE that arrangement, does it make that normal social behavior for human beings?
> 
> Seems to me the whole point of identifying thousands of different species is that they're _different_.  To try to say, "THIS species does this, therefore that is right and normal (in a scientific sense) for all species" is ridiculous.  And even those few species constantly touted by activists as exhibiting "homosexual behavior" only do so rarely, and under specific biological imperatives related to species survival.  I don't believe anyone has yet identified any specific reason that the human species would require such a biological imperative.  To put it bluntly, homosexual behavior in humans is of any use, scientifically speaking, to the species as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must understand liberals think humans are nothing more than animals this way things like abortion promiscuous activities destruction the family doesn't have much meaning
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if they want to view it strictly from the zoological "humans are animals" perspective, that doesn't change the fact that every species is different, and for good reasons.  The sexual behavior of one is not necessarily analogous to another.
Click to expand...


But it doesn't excuse their  perversions.

tapatalk post


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must understand liberals think humans are nothing more than animals this way things like abortion promiscuous activities destruction the family doesn't have much meaning
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they want to view it strictly from the zoological "humans are animals" perspective, that doesn't change the fact that every species is different, and for good reasons.  The sexual behavior of one is not necessarily analogous to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it doesn't excuse their  perversions.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

or yours ....now you'll lie and say you have none...
this tune tells the tale....[ame=http://youtu.be/IXqjHqno3XY]Oingo Boingo - Nasty Habit - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they want to view it strictly from the zoological "humans are animals" perspective, that doesn't change the fact that every species is different, and for good reasons.  The sexual behavior of one is not necessarily analogous to another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't excuse their  perversions.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or yours ....now you'll lie and say you have none...
> this tune tells the tale....[ame=http://youtu.be/IXqjHqno3XY]Oingo Boingo - Nasty Habit - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Not everyone is like you liberals....That is one of the biggest problems you guys have that you assume we are like you. Most of us Americans are decent people.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't excuse their  perversions.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> or yours ....now you'll lie and say you have none...
> this tune tells the tale....[ame=http://youtu.be/IXqjHqno3XY]Oingo Boingo - Nasty Habit - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not everyone is like you liberals....That is one of the biggest problems you guys have that you assume we are like you. Most of us Americans are decent people.
Click to expand...

 like the song says 
make sure that the neighbors are without suspicion....
btw your ignorance and hate are as indecent as it gets...


----------



## American_Jihad

*CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy*

Is Phil Robertson advocating men marry teenage girls? 

1.3.2014 |Trey Sanchez |

CNN's Pamela Brown is suggesting that Phil Robertson advises "men to marry women at a very young age." Her proof? At age 20, Papa Phil married his wife, who was 16 at the time. 

Brown offered further "proof" by showing footage from 2009 where Robertson, speaking at a sportsman's camp in Georgia, joked about marrying young.

&#8220;You wait till they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're about 15 or 16 and they'll pick your ducks."

To highlight the absurdity of what is clearly meant as a joke, Robertson goes on to say, "You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course," however, CNN decided that did not fit their story, so they edited it out.

Here is the video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXZYDv3uD0Q]Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: Girls should carry a Bible and marry 'when they are 15' - YouTube[/ame]

...

CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy | Truth Revolt


----------



## Pogo

American_Jihad said:


> *CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy*
> 
> Is Phil Robertson advocating men marry teenage girls?
> 
> 1.3.2014 |Trey Sanchez |
> 
> CNN's Pamela Brown is suggesting that Phil Robertson advises "men to marry women at a very young age." Her proof? At age 20, Papa Phil married his wife, who was 16 at the time.
> 
> Brown offered further "proof" by showing footage from 2009 where Robertson, speaking at a sportsman's camp in Georgia, joked about marrying young.
> 
> &#8220;You wait till they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're about 15 or 16 and they'll pick your ducks."
> 
> To highlight the absurdity of what is clearly meant as a joke, Robertson goes on to say, "You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course," however, CNN decided that did not fit their story, so they edited it out.
> 
> Here is the video:
> 
> Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: Girls should carry a Bible and marry 'when they are 15' - YouTube
> 
> ...
> 
> CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy | Truth Revolt




Somebody's missing an opportunity here if they're making a point about pedophilia rather than about sexism. 

Here's the actually significant line, which comes at 0:56:

"You wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only pickin' that's gonna take place is your pocket".

-- He's not advising marrying very young out of pedophilia; he's advising tying a woman down before she gets old enough to understand what she's doing.  The same thinking that tells us to house-train a dog when it's a puppy, rather than later on.  It would seem, from this quip at least, that that's how he views women.

The same reason when we have a military draft it goes for 18-year-olds.  They need the immaturity that can be indoctrinated without too much questioning.


----------



## HenryBHough

I am reminded of the old Northeast Kingdom (Vermont) farmer who married a young woman and brought her home from the wedding in his horse-drawn wagon.

The punchline is:

"B'God, that's ONCE."

Anybody remember the rest of the story?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

HenryBHough said:


> I am reminded of the old Northeast Kingdom (Vermont) farmer who married a young woman and brought her home from the wedding in his horse-drawn wagon.
> 
> The punchline is:
> 
> "B'God, that's ONCE."
> 
> Anybody remember the rest of the story?



The jack ass didn't make it home.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Pogo said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy*
> 
> Is Phil Robertson advocating men marry teenage girls?
> 
> 1.3.2014 |Trey Sanchez |
> 
> CNN's Pamela Brown is suggesting that Phil Robertson advises "men to marry women at a very young age." Her proof? At age 20, Papa Phil married his wife, who was 16 at the time.
> 
> Brown offered further "proof" by showing footage from 2009 where Robertson, speaking at a sportsman's camp in Georgia, joked about marrying young.
> 
> You wait till they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're about 15 or 16 and they'll pick your ducks."
> 
> To highlight the absurdity of what is clearly meant as a joke, Robertson goes on to say, "You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course," however, CNN decided that did not fit their story, so they edited it out.
> 
> Here is the video:
> 
> Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: Girls should carry a Bible and marry 'when they are 15' - YouTube
> 
> ...
> 
> CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy | Truth Revolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody's missing an opportunity here if they're making a point about pedophilia rather than about sexism.
> 
> Here's the actually significant line, which comes at 0:56:
> 
> "You wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only pickin' that's gonna take place is your pocket".
> 
> -- He's not advising marrying very young out of pedophilia; he's advising tying a woman down before she gets old enough to understand what she's doing.  The same thinking that tells us to house-train a dog when it's a puppy, rather than later on.  It would seem, from this quip at least, that that's how he views women.
> 
> The same reason when we have a military draft it goes for 18-year-olds.  They need the immaturity that can be indoctrinated without too much questioning.
Click to expand...


If you knew anything about what was said and who Phil was talking you you wouldn't seem so stupid.

Hint he was talking to teen age boys about marrying teen age girls.


----------



## Pogo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy*
> 
> Is Phil Robertson advocating men marry teenage girls?
> 
> 1.3.2014 |Trey Sanchez |
> 
> CNN's Pamela Brown is suggesting that Phil Robertson advises "men to marry women at a very young age." Her proof? At age 20, Papa Phil married his wife, who was 16 at the time.
> 
> Brown offered further "proof" by showing footage from 2009 where Robertson, speaking at a sportsman's camp in Georgia, joked about marrying young.
> 
> You wait till they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're about 15 or 16 and they'll pick your ducks."
> 
> To highlight the absurdity of what is clearly meant as a joke, Robertson goes on to say, "You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course," however, CNN decided that did not fit their story, so they edited it out.
> 
> Here is the video:
> 
> Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: Girls should carry a Bible and marry 'when they are 15' - YouTube
> 
> ...
> 
> CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy | Truth Revolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody's missing an opportunity here if they're making a point about pedophilia rather than about sexism.
> 
> Here's the actually significant line, which comes at 0:56:
> 
> "You wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only pickin' that's gonna take place is your pocket".
> 
> -- He's not advising marrying very young out of pedophilia; he's advising tying a woman down before she gets old enough to understand what she's doing.  The same thinking that tells us to house-train a dog when it's a puppy, rather than later on.  It would seem, from this quip at least, that that's how he views women.
> 
> The same reason when we have a military draft it goes for 18-year-olds.  They need the immaturity that can be indoctrinated without too much questioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about what was said and who Phil was talking you you wouldn't seem so stupid.
> 
> Hint he was talking to teen age boys about marrying teen age girls.
Click to expand...


No shit, Sherlock.

.... and?


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> I am reminded of the old Northeast Kingdom (Vermont) farmer who married a young woman and brought her home from the wedding in his horse-drawn wagon.
> 
> The punchline is:
> 
> "B'God, that's ONCE."
> 
> Anybody remember the rest of the story?



Yeah I know that one.  And you've succinctly illustrated my point. 

For those unfamiliar with the sexist joke it goes like this:

The newlyweds saunter forth from the church to their new house.  Suddenly the horse stops.  The groom says, "that's once".

The horse continues again for a while, then stops again.  The groom tells him, "that's twice".

The horse continues down the road and then stops a third time.  Groom gets out and shoots the horse dead.

His bride says, "why'd you shoot the horse?"
The groom says "that's once".

Yup, that's how I read that line too.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody's missing an opportunity here if they're making a point about pedophilia rather than about sexism.
> 
> Here's the actually significant line, which comes at 0:56:
> 
> "You wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only pickin' that's gonna take place is your pocket".
> 
> -- He's not advising marrying very young out of pedophilia; he's advising tying a woman down before she gets old enough to understand what she's doing.  The same thinking that tells us to house-train a dog when it's a puppy, rather than later on.  It would seem, from this quip at least, that that's how he views women.
> 
> The same reason when we have a military draft it goes for 18-year-olds.  They need the immaturity that can be indoctrinated without too much questioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about what was said and who Phil was talking you you wouldn't seem so stupid.
> 
> Hint he was talking to teen age boys about marrying teen age girls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.
> 
> .... and?
Click to expand...

There wasn't anything in his comment abut pedophilia, and yes women will go through your wallet if you allow it.


----------



## Pogo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody's missing an opportunity here if they're making a point about pedophilia rather than about sexism.
> 
> Here's the actually significant line, which comes at 0:56:
> 
> "You wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only pickin' that's gonna take place is your pocket".
> 
> -- He's not advising marrying very young out of pedophilia; he's advising tying a woman down before she gets old enough to understand what she's doing. The same thinking that tells us to house-train a dog when it's a puppy, rather than later on. It would seem, from this quip at least, that that's how he views women.
> 
> The same reason when we have a military draft it goes for 18-year-olds. They need the immaturity that can be indoctrinated without too much questioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about what was said and who Phil was talking you you wouldn't seem so stupid.
> 
> Hint he was talking to teen age boys about marrying teen age girls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.
> 
> .... and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There wasn't anything in his comment abut pedophilia, and yes women will go through your wallet if you allow it.
Click to expand...




Reading is truly a lost art.


----------



## Iceman

Feminists and ugly women don't like Phil Robertson's remarks because they don't like competition from younger and better looking women with better attitudes...


----------



## Wake

GLAAD has lost even more respect. ...did it ever have respect in the first place?

And it's really something how Bill O'Reilly castigated Phil, yet Jon Stewart seemed to defend Phil's right to give an opinion without being destroyed for it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy*
> 
> Is Phil Robertson advocating men marry teenage girls?
> 
> 1.3.2014 |Trey Sanchez |
> 
> CNN's Pamela Brown is suggesting that Phil Robertson advises "men to marry women at a very young age." Her proof? At age 20, Papa Phil married his wife, who was 16 at the time.
> 
> Brown offered further "proof" by showing footage from 2009 where Robertson, speaking at a sportsman's camp in Georgia, joked about marrying young.
> 
> &#8220;You wait till they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're about 15 or 16 and they'll pick your ducks."
> 
> To highlight the absurdity of what is clearly meant as a joke, Robertson goes on to say, "You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course," however, CNN decided that did not fit their story, so they edited it out.
> 
> Here is the video:
> 
> Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: Girls should carry a Bible and marry 'when they are 15' - YouTube
> 
> ...
> 
> CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy | Truth Revolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody's missing an opportunity here if they're making a point about pedophilia rather than about sexism.
> 
> Here's the actually significant line, which comes at 0:56:
> 
> "You wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only pickin' that's gonna take place is your pocket".
> 
> -- He's not advising marrying very young out of pedophilia; he's advising tying a woman down before she gets old enough to understand what she's doing.  The same thinking that tells us to house-train a dog when it's a puppy, rather than later on.  It would seem, from this quip at least, that that's how he views women.
> 
> The same reason when we have a military draft it goes for 18-year-olds.  They need the immaturity that can be indoctrinated without too much questioning.
Click to expand...


You missed the point entirely.  

His point wasn't that all women become pocket pickers when they get old, nor that old women can't learn new tricks.  The point was that many of the best women get picked at a younger age, thus reducing your chance to find one that will pluck your duck.

IOW if your list is pretty, plucks ducks, cooks, cleans, and great at the lovin stuff... good luck finding the "one" if you wait too long cause the early bird gets the worm.


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy*
> 
> Is Phil Robertson advocating men marry teenage girls?
> 
> 1.3.2014 |Trey Sanchez |
> 
> CNN's Pamela Brown is suggesting that Phil Robertson advises "men to marry women at a very young age." Her proof? At age 20, Papa Phil married his wife, who was 16 at the time.
> 
> Brown offered further "proof" by showing footage from 2009 where Robertson, speaking at a sportsman's camp in Georgia, joked about marrying young.
> 
> &#8220;You wait till they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're about 15 or 16 and they'll pick your ducks."
> 
> To highlight the absurdity of what is clearly meant as a joke, Robertson goes on to say, "You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course," however, CNN decided that did not fit their story, so they edited it out.
> 
> Here is the video:
> 
> Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: Girls should carry a Bible and marry 'when they are 15' - YouTube
> 
> ...
> 
> CNN Fabricating New Papa Phil Controversy | Truth Revolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody's missing an opportunity here if they're making a point about pedophilia rather than about sexism.
> 
> Here's the actually significant line, which comes at 0:56:
> 
> "You wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only pickin' that's gonna take place is your pocket".
> 
> -- He's not advising marrying very young out of pedophilia; he's advising tying a woman down before she gets old enough to understand what she's doing.  The same thinking that tells us to house-train a dog when it's a puppy, rather than later on.  It would seem, from this quip at least, that that's how he views women.
> 
> The same reason when we have a military draft it goes for 18-year-olds.  They need the immaturity that can be indoctrinated without too much questioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point entirely.
> 
> His point wasn't that all women become pocket pickers when they get old, nor that old women can't learn new tricks.  The point was that many of the best women get picked at a younger age, thus reducing your chance to find one that will pluck your duck.
Click to expand...


Uh --- no.  Doesn't work.  If that was the case he wouldn't need to advise the young bucks to pick 'em young.  It would be a given.

Looks to me like he regards women as pets that will be better trained while they're still pups.


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody's missing an opportunity here if they're making a point about pedophilia rather than about sexism.
> 
> Here's the actually significant line, which comes at 0:56:
> 
> "You wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only pickin' that's gonna take place is your pocket".
> 
> -- He's not advising marrying very young out of pedophilia; he's advising tying a woman down before she gets old enough to understand what she's doing.  The same thinking that tells us to house-train a dog when it's a puppy, rather than later on.  It would seem, from this quip at least, that that's how he views women.
> 
> The same reason when we have a military draft it goes for 18-year-olds.  They need the immaturity that can be indoctrinated without too much questioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point entirely.
> 
> His point wasn't that all women become pocket pickers when they get old, nor that old women can't learn new tricks.  The point was that many of the best women get picked at a younger age, thus reducing your chance to find one that will pluck your duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh --- no.  Doesn't work.  If that was the case he wouldn't need to advise the young bucks to pick 'em young.  It would be a given.
> 
> Looks to me like he regards women as pets that will be better trained while they're still pups.
Click to expand...


>> Uh --- no.  Doesn't work.  If that was the case he wouldn't need to advise the young bucks to pick 'em young.  It would be a given.

Of course it's a given, that's his point.  Sometimes sage advice is just sage advice.  You act like an old man giving sage advice to young-ins is some new thing.  

>> Looks to me like he regards women as pets that will be better trained while they're still pups.

Looks to me like you are projecting.  How long have you treated your wife like a pet?


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point entirely.
> 
> His point wasn't that all women become pocket pickers when they get old, nor that old women can't learn new tricks.  The point was that many of the best women get picked at a younger age, thus reducing your chance to find one that will pluck your duck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh --- no.  Doesn't work.  If that was the case he wouldn't need to advise the young bucks to pick 'em young.  It would be a given.
> 
> Looks to me like he regards women as pets that will be better trained while they're still pups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> Uh --- no.  Doesn't work.  If that was the case he wouldn't need to advise the young bucks to pick 'em young.  It would be a given.
> 
> Of course it's a given, that's his point.  Sometimes sage advice is just sage advice.  You act like an old man giving sage advice to young-ins is some new thing.
> 
> >> Looks to me like he regards women as pets that will be better trained while they're still pups.
> 
> Looks to me like you are projecting.  How long have you treated your wife like a pet?
Click to expand...


Don't act stupid with me.  I know better.
A "given" means it's already understood, which means there is no need to dispense advice to do what you're already doing.  Do you need a reminder to breathe?

If marrying mid-teens was a given, there would be no point in even bringing it up.  But he made a point of not only dispensing that advice but repeating it to a mass audience.  That tells us it's not a given.  Then he goes into the reason why: house training.

As I said somebody's grasping for a pedophilia point, when this one is just laying there like a sitting duck, pun intended.


----------



## thanatos144

At what point did women become angels never do any wrong? I have a wife I love her dearly but she has many faults and she gets has complaints about me and most of her friends are beyond a doubt money hungry bitches.

tapatalk post


----------



## American_Jihad

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody's missing an opportunity here if they're making a point about pedophilia rather than about sexism.
> 
> Here's the actually significant line, which comes at 0:56:
> 
> "You wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only pickin' that's gonna take place is your pocket".
> 
> -- He's not advising marrying very young out of pedophilia; he's advising tying a woman down before she gets old enough to understand what she's doing.  The same thinking that tells us to house-train a dog when it's a puppy, rather than later on.  It would seem, from this quip at least, that that's how he views women.
> 
> The same reason when we have a military draft it goes for 18-year-olds.  They need the immaturity that can be indoctrinated without too much questioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about what was said and who Phil was talking you you wouldn't seem so stupid.
> 
> Hint he was talking to teen age boys about marrying teen age girls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.
> 
> .... and?
Click to expand...






IM sure the left will condemn the beastly prophet mOOhamMud...​


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh --- no.  Doesn't work.  If that was the case he wouldn't need to advise the young bucks to pick 'em young.  It would be a given.
> 
> Looks to me like he regards women as pets that will be better trained while they're still pups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> Uh --- no.  Doesn't work.  If that was the case he wouldn't need to advise the young bucks to pick 'em young.  It would be a given.
> 
> Of course it's a given, that's his point.  Sometimes sage advice is just sage advice.  You act like an old man giving sage advice to young-ins is some new thing.
> 
> >> Looks to me like he regards women as pets that will be better trained while they're still pups.
> 
> Looks to me like you are projecting.  How long have you treated your wife like a pet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't act stupid with me.  I know better.
> A "given" means it's already understood, which means there is no need to dispense advice to do what you're already doing.  Do you need a reminder to breathe?
> 
> If marrying mid-teens was a given, there would be no point in even bringing it up.  But he made a point of not only dispensing that advice but repeating it to a mass audience.  That tells us it's not a given.  Then he goes into the reason why: house training.
> 
> As I said somebody's grasping for a pedophilia point, when this one is just laying there like a sitting duck, pun intended.
Click to expand...


I can't figure out if you are retarded or just plain ignorant.  The median age men and women are when they get married has gone up 5years since Phil got married.  It's sage advice because it's true, not because the average age hasn't gone up.

Median Age at First Marriage, 1890?2010 | Infoplease.com


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> Uh --- no.  Doesn't work.  If that was the case he wouldn't need to advise the young bucks to pick 'em young.  It would be a given.
> 
> Of course it's a given, that's his point.  Sometimes sage advice is just sage advice.  You act like an old man giving sage advice to young-ins is some new thing.
> 
> >> Looks to me like he regards women as pets that will be better trained while they're still pups.
> 
> Looks to me like you are projecting.  How long have you treated your wife like a pet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't act stupid with me.  I know better.
> A "given" means it's already understood, which means there is no need to dispense advice to do what you're already doing.  Do you need a reminder to breathe?
> 
> If marrying mid-teens was a given, there would be no point in even bringing it up.  But he made a point of not only dispensing that advice but repeating it to a mass audience.  That tells us it's not a given.  Then he goes into the reason why: house training.
> 
> As I said somebody's grasping for a pedophilia point, when this one is just laying there like a sitting duck, pun intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if you are retarded or just plain ignorant.  The median age men and women are when they get married has gone up 5years since Phil got married.  It's sage advice because it's true, not because the average age hasn't gone up.
> 
> Median Age at First Marriage, 1890?2010 | Infoplease.com
Click to expand...


None of that has anything to do with my post.  I didn't post about anyone's age.  I posted about how Phil Robertson appears to view women --- i.e. as pets.


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't act stupid with me.  I know better.
> A "given" means it's already understood, which means there is no need to dispense advice to do what you're already doing.  Do you need a reminder to breathe?
> 
> If marrying mid-teens was a given, there would be no point in even bringing it up.  But he made a point of not only dispensing that advice but repeating it to a mass audience.  That tells us it's not a given.  Then he goes into the reason why: house training.
> 
> As I said somebody's grasping for a pedophilia point, when this one is just laying there like a sitting duck, pun intended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if you are retarded or just plain ignorant.  The median age men and women are when they get married has gone up 5years since Phil got married.  It's sage advice because it's true, not because the average age hasn't gone up.
> 
> Median Age at First Marriage, 1890?2010 | Infoplease.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with my post.  I didn't post about anyone's age.  I posted about how Phil Robertson appears to view women --- i.e. as pets.
Click to expand...


You didn't post about anyone's age?  ROFL so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your BS lie that you think Phil sees women as pets.  WOW just WOW


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if you are retarded or just plain ignorant.  The median age men and women are when they get married has gone up 5years since Phil got married.  It's sage advice because it's true, not because the average age hasn't gone up.
> 
> Median Age at First Marriage, 1890?2010 | Infoplease.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with my post.  I didn't post about anyone's age.  I posted about how Phil Robertson appears to view women --- i.e. as pets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't post about anyone's age?  ROFL so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your BS lie that you think Phil thinks sees women as pets.  WOW just WOW
Click to expand...

not just pets he see himself as superior to women just like you ...


----------



## RKMBrown

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with my post.  I didn't post about anyone's age.  I posted about how Phil Robertson appears to view women --- i.e. as pets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't post about anyone's age?  ROFL so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your BS lie that you think Phil thinks sees women as pets.  WOW just WOW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not just pets he see himself as superior to women just like you ...
Click to expand...


WTH is wrong with you people?


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't post about anyone's age?  ROFL so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your BS lie that you think Phil thinks sees women as pets.  WOW just WOW
> 
> 
> 
> not just pets he see himself as superior to women just like you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH is wrong with you people?
Click to expand...

wtf is wrong with you people...


----------



## American_Jihad

*Duck Dynasty Family Launches New Gun Line*​
By Michael Rothman
Jan 3, 2014

Things couldnt get any better for the Duck Dynasty clan in 2014.

Days after A&E reinstated Phil Robertson following a short suspension for making anti-gay comments, Duck Commander, the company Robertson started 40 years ago, has launched a new gun line.

Mossberg, a gun maker headquartered in North Haven, Conn., has teamed with Duck Commander to release nine shotguns, two semiautomatic rifles and a semiautomatic pistol.

Mossberg also released a series of commercials last month that shows the Robertson family hunting and holding the new line of guns.

Lets go kill some ducks, boys, a voice says in one video.

...

?Duck Dynasty? Family Launches New Gun Line - ABC News


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if you are retarded or just plain ignorant.  The median age men and women are when they get married has gone up 5years since Phil got married.  It's sage advice because it's true, not because the average age hasn't gone up.
> 
> Median Age at First Marriage, 1890?2010 | Infoplease.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with my post.  I didn't post about anyone's age.  I posted about how Phil Robertson appears to view women --- i.e. as pets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't post about anyone's age?  ROFL so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your BS lie that you think Phil sees women as pets.  WOW just WOW
Click to expand...


I specifically said at the outset that interpreting the comment as pedophilia is a missed opportunity -- which means it (the opportunity) is *not* about age.

There was a second part to what I posted at the time, but inasmuch as it would require a second complete sentence in the English language, you probably can't handle it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with my post.  I didn't post about anyone's age.  I posted about how Phil Robertson appears to view women --- i.e. as pets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't post about anyone's age?  ROFL so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your BS lie that you think Phil sees women as pets.  WOW just WOW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I specifically said at the outset that interpreting the comment as pedophilia is a missed opportunity -- which means it (the opportunity) is *not* about age.
> 
> There was a second part to what I posted at the time, but inasmuch as it would require a second complete sentence in the English language, you probably can't handle it.
Click to expand...


Cause if it's about age it must be about pedophilia?    You are retarded.


----------



## daws101

rkmbrown said:


> pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rkmbrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> you didn't post about anyone's age?  Rofl so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your bs lie that you think phil sees women as pets.  Wow just wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i specifically said at the outset that interpreting the comment as pedophilia is a missed opportunity -- which means it (the opportunity) is *not* about age.
> 
> There was a second part to what i posted at the time, but inasmuch as it would require a second complete sentence in the english language, you probably can't handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cause if it's about age it must be about pedophilia?    You are retarded.
Click to expand...

this one missed it too.


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't post about anyone's age?  ROFL so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your BS lie that you think Phil sees women as pets.  WOW just WOW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically said at the outset that interpreting the comment as pedophilia is a missed opportunity -- which means it (the opportunity) is *not* about age.
> 
> There was a second part to what I posted at the time, but inasmuch as it would require a second complete sentence in the English language, you probably can't handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cause if it's about age it must be about pedophilia?    You are retarded.
Click to expand...


I see I overestimated your fabled reading comprehension even with the _one _sentence.  You _*still*_ got the elements backward.

What a maroon.


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically said at the outset that interpreting the comment as pedophilia is a missed opportunity -- which means it (the opportunity) is *not* about age.
> 
> There was a second part to what I posted at the time, but inasmuch as it would require a second complete sentence in the English language, you probably can't handle it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cause if it's about age it must be about pedophilia?    You are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see I overestimated your fabled reading comprehension even with the _one _sentence.  You _*still*_ got the elements backward.
> 
> What a maroon.
Click to expand...


You don't even know what "means" means. What a dumb ass.  Can you even explain the difference between missed opportunity and opportunity?  Can you even fathom the concept of a non-recursive active voice sentence?


----------



## American_Jihad

*Wells Fargos sponsorship empowered GLAAD to censor Duck Dynastys Phil Robertson. *​
...

Where does GLAAD get the power to singlehandedly remove the lead character from the most popular network program? 

One major source is Wells Fargo's sponsorship of GLAAD.

Wells Fargos sponsorship was prominently posted on the GLAAD website during the time that this organization caused A&E to remove Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty. 

Wells Fargos logo continues to boast support for this organization which continues to disagree with Duck Dynasty.

Wells Fargo, a bank that profits from all walks of life, empowered GLAAD to attack Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty for biblically based beliefs that are shared by millions of Americans.

...

Full Article


----------



## Pogo

Phil Robertson doesn't work for GLAAD, Jizzhat, whatever that is.  He's under contract with A&E, which  does have the power to do what it wants according to a standard morality clause.

Not sure what time zone you're in but most of us figured this shit out a month ago.


----------



## Katzndogz

As we have seen, A&E didn't dismiss Phil Robertson and GLAAD was left standing with it's collective dick in their collective hands.


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> Phil Robertson doesn't work for GLAAD, Jizzhat, whatever that is.  He's under contract with A&E, which  does have the power to do what it wants according to a standard morality clause.
> 
> Not sure what time zone you're in but most of us figured this shit out a month ago.



Who said Phil works for GLADD?  God you are dumb. 

A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights.  See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page 

If Phil was black Barrack would have filed charges.

As shown, you haven't figured anything out yet.


----------



## daws101

Katzndogz said:


> As we have seen, A&E didn't dismiss Phil Robertson and GLAAD was left standing with it's collective dick in their collective hands.


false! glaad exposed him for what he is and that can't be undone....delusional much?


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Robertson doesn't work for GLAAD, Jizzhat, whatever that is.  He's under contract with A&E, which  does have the power to do what it wants according to a standard morality clause.
> 
> Not sure what time zone you're in but most of us figured this shit out a month ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Phil works for GLADD?
Click to expand...


American_Jizzhat thinks he does.  He posted this:


> Where does GLAAD get the power to singlehandedly remove the lead character from the most popular network program?



Obviously if this GLAAD has the power to remove a TV character, then it must be Robertson's employer.  That's why I point out that it is not.

Did I go through that too fast?




RKMBrown said:


> God you are dumb.



God may be dumb, I dunno.  Frank Zappa thinks that might be the case:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTfOB_TBBew"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTfOB_TBBew[/ame]



RKMBrown said:


> A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights.



Receiving a lawsuit (being sued) isn't "power".  It would be a liability.  Don't skim too fast over those English lessons.

Irrelevant anyway, as nobody's civil rights were violated.  The Producer exercised a clause in the contract to which both are signatory.  That's a simple thing.  Even you might grok it if you strain really really hard.  But take a breath when you do; remember how Elvis died...



RKMBrown said:


> See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page



Again, completely irrelevant.  Nobody was hired, fired or anything else based on religion.  Nor is Phil Robertson a statutory employee anyway.  Not even close to relevant on any level.  If it was, Robertson would have taken the action rather than accepting A&E's conditions.

I mean... DUH.



RKMBrown said:


> If Phil was black Barrack would have filed charges.



Who the fuck is "Barrack"?   And what "charges" would he have filed?  Against who?  For what?

It's a* fucking TV show*.



RKMBrown said:


> As shown, you haven't figured anything out yet.



As shown in this and the other 1152 threads about this ridiculous non-issue, the rest of us figured this shit out a month ago.  I understand remedial reading takes time...


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Robertson doesn't work for GLAAD, Jizzhat, whatever that is.  He's under contract with A&E, which  does have the power to do what it wants according to a standard morality clause.
> 
> Not sure what time zone you're in but most of us figured this shit out a month ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Phil works for GLADD?  God you are dumb.
> 
> A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights.  See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page
> 
> If Phil was black Barrack would have filed charges.
> 
> As shown, you haven't figured anything out yet.
Click to expand...

wrong! he could only file charges if A&E HAD  obstructed him in the work place..they did not.
he did the interview own his own time with GQ magazine.and that violates the morality clause in his contract    

A morals clause is a provision within instruments of the contract which curtail, or restrain, or proscribe certain behavior of individuals or party(s) to the contract. A moral clause within contracts used as a means of holding the individual or Party(s) to a certain behavioral standard so as not to bring disrepute, contempt or scandal to other individual or party to the contract and their interests. It attempts to preserve a public and private image of such a party to the contract. In essence one party to the contract is purchasing the other party's good name or reputation. These clauses are most seen in contracts between actors and actresses and their studios, athletes and their organization or proprietors of a product that the athlete(s) may endorse or as a part of a marital settlement. Commonly proscribed activity include the use or abuse of alcohol, the use of illegal drugs or narcotics or illegal or illicit sexual activity.[1]
The impetus for a morals clause in contracts for 'talent,' i.e., artistic performers appears to have been a reaction to the Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle case in 1921. Subsequent to media outcry, Universal Studios decided to add a morals clause to contracts. The text of the 1921 Universal Studios clause read as follows: "The actor (actress) agrees to conduct himself (herself) with due regard to public conventions and morals and agrees that he (she) will not do or commit anything tending to degrade him (her) in society or bring him (her) into public hatred, contempt, scorn or ridicule, or tending to shock, insult or offend the community or outrage public morals or decency, or tending to the prejudice of the Universal Film Manufacturing Company or the motion picture industry. In the event that the actor (actress) violates any term or provision of this paragraph, then the Universal Film Manufacturing Company has the right to cancel and annul this contract by giving five (5) days notice to the actor (actress) of its intention to do so."[2]
The first morals clause for a professional athlete may be a November 11, 1922 contract addendum for Babe Ruth. The clause stated: "It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the regulation above set forth, numbered '2' shall be construed to mean among other things, that the player shall at all times during the term of this contract and throughout the years 1922, 1923 and 1924, and the years 1925 and 1926 if this contract is renewed for such years, refrain and abstain entirely from the use of intoxicating liquors and that he shall not during the training and playing season in each year stay up later than 1 o'clock A.M. on any day without the permission and consent of the Club's manager, and it is understood and agreed that if at any time during the period of this contract, whether in the playing season or not, the player shall indulge in intoxicating liquors or be guilty of any action or misbehavior which may render him unfit to perform the services to be performed by him hereunder, the Club may cancel and terminate this contract and retain as the property of the Club, any sums of money withheld from the player's salary as above provided."[3]
Apparently, Colonel Jake Ruppert (owner of the Yankees) had also hoped to curtail the Babe's notorious womanizing. Ruth is quoted as replying "I'll promise to go easier on drinking and to get to bed earlier, but not for you, fifty thousand dollars, or two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars will I give up women. They're too much fun."[4]
Morals clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

talk out your ass much..


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Robertson doesn't work for GLAAD, Jizzhat, whatever that is.  He's under contract with A&E, which  does have the power to do what it wants according to a standard morality clause.
> 
> Not sure what time zone you're in but most of us figured this shit out a month ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Phil works for GLADD?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American_Jizzhat thinks he does.  He posted this:
> 
> 
> Obviously if this GLAAD has the power to remove a TV character, then it must be Robertson's employer.  That's why I point out that it is not.
> 
> Did I go through that too fast?
> 
> 
> Receiving a lawsuit (being sued) isn't "power".  It would be a liability.  Don't skim too fast over those English lessons.
> 
> Irrelevant anyway, as nobody's civil rights were violated.  The Producer exercised a clause in the contract to which both are signatory.  That's a simple thing.  Even you might grok it if you strain really really hard.  But take a breath when you do; remember how Elvis died...
> 
> Again, completely irrelevant.  Nobody was hired, fired or anything else based on religion.  Nor is Phil Robertson a statutory employee anyway.  Not even close to relevant on any level.  If it was, Robertson would have taken the action rather than accepting A&E's conditions.
> 
> I mean... DUH.
> 
> Who the fuck is "Barrack"?   And what "charges" would he have filed?  Against who?  For what?
Click to expand...


What an ignorant shit head you are. 

Power to receive... (power: the ability to do something, for example perform the act of receiving a lawsuit.)  Exercising the power to receive a lawsuit carries a risk of liability.  What a dumb ass you are, I bet you get shit on your hands when you wipe your ass cause the TP doesn't come with instructions with pictures.

>> American_Jizzhat thinks he does.

So now you read minds too? He said nothing of the kind you ignoramus. His point was clearly to the evident leverage GLADD used to get Phil suspended.  You do understand the concept of leverage, don't you?

>> nobody's civil rights were violated

OMFG    [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], you are a lying POS water carrier for anti-christian lobbies.

>> Nor is Phil Robertson a statutory employee anyway...

Link?

>> If it was, Robertson would have taken the action rather than accepting A&E's conditions.

So you read Phil Robertson's mind too?  WOW must be fun being able to read everyone's mind.

>> Who the fuck is "Barrack"? 

Your president dumb ass,  Barack Hussein Obama.


----------



## RKMBrown

daws101 said:


> wrong! he could only file charges if A&E HAD  obstructed him in the work place..they did not.
> he did the interview own his own time with GQ magazine.and that violates the morality clause in his contract



Did not obstruct?  Yeah cause barring Phil from his home and business during tapping of the show about his company, is no obstruction whatsoever... ROFL

A&E was involved in setting up the Interview.  Own time? You think everyone punches a time clock?  ROFL


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Phil works for GLADD?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jizzhat thinks he does.  He posted this:
> 
> 
> Obviously if this GLAAD has the power to remove a TV character, then it must be Robertson's employer.  That's why I point out that it is not.
> 
> Did I go through that too fast?
> 
> 
> Receiving a lawsuit (being sued) isn't "power".  It would be a liability.  Don't skim too fast over those English lessons.
> 
> Irrelevant anyway, as nobody's civil rights were violated.  The Producer exercised a clause in the contract to which both are signatory.  That's a simple thing.  Even you might grok it if you strain really really hard.  But take a breath when you do; remember how Elvis died...
> 
> Again, completely irrelevant.  Nobody was hired, fired or anything else based on religion.  Nor is Phil Robertson a statutory employee anyway.  Not even close to relevant on any level.  If it was, Robertson would have taken the action rather than accepting A&E's conditions.
> 
> I mean... DUH.
> 
> Who the fuck is "Barrack"?   And what "charges" would he have filed?  Against who?  For what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an ignorant shit head you are.
> 
> Power to receive... (power: the ability to do something, for example perform the act of receiving a lawsuit.)  Exercising the power to receive a lawsuit carries a risk of liability.  What a dumb ass you are, I bet you get shit on your hands when you wipe your ass cause the TP doesn't come with instructions with pictures.
Click to expand...


"Receiving" a lawsuit (again, on Earth we call it "being sued") is a passive occurrence.  Doesn't require doing anything.  The suing party makes it happen.  You don't need "power" to do nothing.

Maybe when your remedial reading gets to the letter P this will make more sense...
probably not.



RKMBrown said:


> >> American_Jizzhat thinks he does.
> 
> So now you read minds too? He said nothing of the kind you ignoramus.



It's a verbatim quote.  Thanks for playin'.



RKMBrown said:


> His point was clearly to the evident leverage GLADD used to get Phil suspended.



So now you read minds too?  How the fuck do you know what somebody else's point was?  Jizzhat is notorious for not having a point, but if he meant to say what your Karnackian mind reading abilities say, then he should have just said that.  He didn't.



RKMBrown said:


> > nobody's civil rights were violated
> 
> OMFG    [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], you are a lying POS water carrier for anti-christian lobbies.



That isn't even a point.  What you got?  *Where* were anybody's civil rights violated? 

_Where?_



RKMBrown said:


> >> Nor is Phil Robertson a statutory employee anyway...
> 
> Link?



He's an actor for a specific TV show.  That means he's an independent contractor.  A&E doesn't hire Phil Robertson to run sound for "Pawn Stars".  _That _would be an employee.




RKMBrown said:


> >> If it was, Robertson would have taken the action rather than accepting A&E's conditions.
> 
> So you read Phil Robertson's mind too?  WOW must be fun being able to read everyone's mind.



Once again, inability to refute sadly noted.



RKMBrown said:


> >> Who the fuck is "Barrack"?
> 
> Your president dumb ass,  Barack Hussein Obama.



You can't spell your own president's name, and that makes *me* a dumbass...
Again, complete failure to address your own point noted.   How does a President "file charges"?  What would they be for?  Against who?  


Here, I'm sure you'll need some of this to explore your answers if you intend to pull them from the same place you got these...


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! he could only file charges if A&E HAD  obstructed him in the work place..they did not.
> he did the interview own his own time with GQ magazine.and that violates the morality clause in his contract
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did not obstruct?  Yeah cause barring Phil from his home and business during tapping of the show about his company, is no obstruction whatsoever... ROFL
> 
> A&E was involved in setting up the Interview.  Own time? You think everyone punches a time clock?  ROFL
Click to expand...

much ado about a nontroversy


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> It's a verbatim quote.  Thanks for playin'.


Liar.  You changed every element of his statement to mean what you wanted it to mean.  




Pogo said:


> *Where* were anybody's civil rights violated?


How many times do you have to ask and be given the same answer before it gets into your thick skull?  



Pogo said:


> He's an actor for a specific TV show.  That means he's an independent contractor.


Link?



Pogo said:


> So you read Phil Robertson's mind too?  WOW must be fun being able to read everyone's mind.


Who's more apt to know what Phil meant, me, the christian who is defending him, or you the asshole bigot that hates Phil because he's a christian?



Pogo said:


> You can't spell your own president's name, and that makes *me* a dumbass...


I'm just so impressed by your infallible spelling skills. Where do I send you your medal?



Pogo said:


> Again, complete failure to address your own point noted.   How does a President "file charges"?  What would they be for?  Against who?


Dumb ass I already cited this information.


----------



## RKMBrown

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! he could only file charges if A&E HAD  obstructed him in the work place..they did not.
> he did the interview own his own time with GQ magazine.and that violates the morality clause in his contract
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did not obstruct?  Yeah cause barring Phil from his home and business during tapping of the show about his company, is no obstruction whatsoever... ROFL
> 
> A&E was involved in setting up the Interview.  Own time? You think everyone punches a time clock?  ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> much ado about a nontroversy
Click to expand...


Agreed.


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did not obstruct?  Yeah cause barring Phil from his home and business during tapping of the show about his company, is no obstruction whatsoever... ROFL
> 
> A&E was involved in setting up the Interview.  Own time? You think everyone punches a time clock?  ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> much ado about a nontroversy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
Click to expand...

so you agree that you and all the other suckers have been had!?


----------



## RKMBrown

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> much ado about a nontroversy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you agree that you and all the other suckers have been had!?
Click to expand...


IMO the nontroversy was the attack on Phil by the Gay lobby, that caused A&E to temporarily suspend him.  

As to your statement about suckers, I assure you that while I'm not bothered by gay folks, I have no intention of participating in the sucking of ___ that they seem to enjoy.


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a verbatim quote.  Thanks for playin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  You changed every element of his statement to mean what you wanted it to mean.
Click to expand...


I cut and pasted it, so why don't you go fuck yourself with a saguaro.



RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where* were anybody's civil rights violated?
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to ask and be given the same answer before it gets into your thick skull?
Click to expand...


One.  Which is exactly one more than you've posted.

Did I run that by too fast?




RKMBrown said:


> Link?



You want a link to the fact that Phil Robertson is an actor on "Duck Dynasty"?

Are you this stupid off the internet too?




RKMBrown said:


> Who's more apt to know what Phil meant, me, the christian who is defending him, or you the asshole bigot that hates Phil because he's a christian?



Obviously only one of us reads English.  You couldn't even muddle through my post.  Moreover you have no basis for purporting to know what I think about Phil Robertson.  None.

See, on my planet we start with a basis first.  Saves a lot of stepping in rhetorical quicksand.



RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, complete failure to address your own point noted.   How does a President "file charges"?  What would they be for?  Against who?
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass I already cited this information.
Click to expand...


Obviously the site removed it then, because it never showed up.  Because you didn't post any.
Lying asshat.


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree that you and all the other suckers have been had!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO the nontroversy was the attack on Phil by the Gay lobby, that caused A&E to temporarily suspend him.
> 
> As to your statement about suckers, I assure you that while I'm not bothered by gay folks, I have no intention of participating in the sucking of ___ that they seem to enjoy.
Click to expand...

that was almost funny! 
still won't admit you were a sucker...Definition of sucker (n)
Bing Dictionary
suck·er[ súk&#601;r ]
somebody easily fooled: an easily fooled or tricked person
somebody who gives in easily: somebody who has little resistance to and is easily influenced by something


----------



## RKMBrown

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree that you and all the other suckers have been had!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the nontroversy was the attack on Phil by the Gay lobby, that caused A&E to temporarily suspend him.
> 
> As to your statement about suckers, I assure you that while I'm not bothered by gay folks, I have no intention of participating in the sucking of ___ that they seem to enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that was almost funny!
> still won't admit you were a sucker...Definition of sucker (n)
> Bing Dictionary
> suck·er[ súk&#601;r ]
> somebody easily fooled: an easily fooled or tricked person
> somebody who gives in easily: somebody who has little resistance to and is easily influenced by something
Click to expand...

You need to buy a better dictionary. 

Sucker:
1a :  one that sucks especially a breast or udder :  suckling
b :  a device for creating or regulating suction (as a piston or valve in a pump)
c :  a pipe or tube through which something is drawn by suction
d (1) :  an organ in various animals for adhering or holding (2) :  a mouth (as of a leech) adapted for sucking or adhering
2:  a shoot from the roots or lower part of the stem of a plant
3:  any of numerous chiefly North American freshwater bony fishes (family Catostomidae) closely related to the carps but distinguished from them especially by the structure of the mouth which usually has thick soft lips &#8212; compare hog sucker, white sucker
4:  lollipop 1
5a :  a person easily cheated or deceived
b :  a person irresistibly attracted by something specified <a sucker for ghost stories>
c &#8212;used as a generalized term of reference <see if you can get that sucker working again>
-Websters


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a verbatim quote.  Thanks for playin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  You changed every element of his statement to mean what you wanted it to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cut and pasted it, so why don't you go fuck yourself with a saguaro.
> 
> 
> 
> One.  Which is exactly one more than you've posted.
> 
> Did I run that by too fast?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want a link to the fact that Phil Robertson is an actor on "Duck Dynasty"?
> 
> Are you this stupid off the internet too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously only one of us reads English.  You couldn't even muddle through my post.  Moreover you have no basis for purporting to know what I think about Phil Robertson.  None.
> 
> See, on my planet we start with a basis first.  Saves a lot of stepping in rhetorical quicksand.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, complete failure to address your own point noted.   How does a President "file charges"?  What would they be for?  Against who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb ass I already cited this information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously the site removed it then, because it never showed up.  Because you didn't post any.
> Lying asshat.
Click to expand...


Every single one of your statements is a poorly crafted lie.  Eat shit nimrod.


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the nontroversy was the attack on Phil by the Gay lobby, that caused A&E to temporarily suspend him.
> 
> As to your statement about suckers, I assure you that while I'm not bothered by gay folks, I have no intention of participating in the sucking of ___ that they seem to enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> that was almost funny!
> still won't admit you were a sucker...Definition of sucker (n)
> Bing Dictionary
> suck·er[ súk&#601;r ]
> somebody easily fooled: an easily fooled or tricked person
> somebody who gives in easily: somebody who has little resistance to and is easily influenced by something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to buy a better dictionary.
> 
> Sucker:
> 1a :  one that sucks especially a breast or udder :  suckling
> b :  a device for creating or regulating suction (as a piston or valve in a pump)
> c :  a pipe or tube through which something is drawn by suction
> d (1) :  an organ in various animals for adhering or holding (2) :  a mouth (as of a leech) adapted for sucking or adhering
> 2:  a shoot from the roots or lower part of the stem of a plant
> 3:  any of numerous chiefly North American freshwater bony fishes (family Catostomidae) closely related to the carps but distinguished from them especially by the structure of the mouth which usually has thick soft lips  compare hog sucker, white sucker
> 4:  lollipop 1
> 5a :  a person easily cheated or deceived
> b :  a person irresistibly attracted by something specified <a sucker for ghost stories>
> c used as a generalized term of reference <see if you can get that sucker working again>
> -Websters
Click to expand...

 nice cherry picking!  a :  a person easily cheated or deceived
Sucker - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

chicken shit too


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RKMBrown said:


> A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights.  See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page



Ignorant nonsense. 

As already correctly noted, no ones civil rights were violated, religious or otherwise. 

This premise was proven false weeks ago in the failed Not Good thread.


----------



## daws101

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights.  See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant nonsense.
> 
> As already correctly noted, no ones civil rights were violated, religious or otherwise.
> 
> This premise was proven false weeks ago in the failed Not Good thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pogo

daws101 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights.  See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant nonsense.
> 
> As already correctly noted, no ones civil rights were violated, religious or otherwise.
> 
> This premise was proven false weeks ago in the failed Not Good thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Actually in all seven hundred thousand of them. 

Brownie's doing a heckuva job keeping up.  He must have flipped his calendar over to January 2013.


----------



## RKMBrown

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that was almost funny!
> still won't admit you were a sucker...Definition of sucker (n)
> Bing Dictionary
> suck·er[ súk&#601;r ]
> somebody easily fooled: an easily fooled or tricked person
> somebody who gives in easily: somebody who has little resistance to and is easily influenced by something
> 
> 
> 
> You need to buy a better dictionary.
> 
> Sucker:
> 1a :  one that sucks especially a breast or udder :  suckling
> b :  a device for creating or regulating suction (as a piston or valve in a pump)
> c :  a pipe or tube through which something is drawn by suction
> d (1) :  an organ in various animals for adhering or holding (2) :  a mouth (as of a leech) adapted for sucking or adhering
> 2:  a shoot from the roots or lower part of the stem of a plant
> 3:  any of numerous chiefly North American freshwater bony fishes (family Catostomidae) closely related to the carps but distinguished from them especially by the structure of the mouth which usually has thick soft lips  compare hog sucker, white sucker
> 4:  lollipop 1
> 5a :  a person easily cheated or deceived
> b :  a person irresistibly attracted by something specified <a sucker for ghost stories>
> c used as a generalized term of reference <see if you can get that sucker working again>
> -Websters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice cherry picking!  a :  a person easily cheated or deceived
> Sucker - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> chicken shit too
Click to expand...


You go all the way down to definition 5a to find the definition you think should be 1, then you call chicken shit.  You are a pimple... pop.


----------



## RKMBrown

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights.  See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant nonsense.
> 
> As already correctly noted, no ones civil rights were violated, religious or otherwise.
> 
> This premise was proven false weeks ago in the failed Not Good thread.
Click to expand...


Civil rights are ignorant nonsense?  You libtards are pieces of dog shit.


----------



## HenryBHough

The whole flap was nothing more than a manufactured crisis intended to take the focus off the disaster that is Obamacare.

To pay any more attention to the Duck Debacle now is to be unpatriotic.


----------



## American_Jihad

American_Jihad said:


> *Wells Fargos sponsorship empowered GLAAD to censor Duck Dynastys Phil Robertson. *​
> ...
> 
> Where does GLAAD get the power to singlehandedly remove the lead character from the most popular network program?
> 
> One major source is Wells Fargo's sponsorship of GLAAD.
> 
> Wells Fargos sponsorship was prominently posted on the GLAAD website during the time that this organization caused A&E to remove Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty.
> 
> Wells Fargos logo continues to boast support for this organization which continues to disagree with Duck Dynasty.
> 
> Wells Fargo, a bank that profits from all walks of life, empowered GLAAD to attack Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty for biblically based beliefs that are shared by millions of Americans.
> 
> ...
> 
> Full Article



I love it when I light the flame and the liberal/moths come flying in and get their wings singed. I also wanted my friends to send the email to Wells Fargo to cut the glaad money off. Sorry if you lefties got all wee weed up, lol NOT...


----------



## American_Jihad

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a verbatim quote.  Thanks for playin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  You changed every element of his statement to mean what you wanted it to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I cut and pasted* it, so why don't you go fuck yourself with a saguaro.
Click to expand...


Hey nimrod, I guess I won't have to hear yo complaints about my cut n paste anymore...


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to buy a better dictionary.
> 
> Sucker:
> 1a :  one that sucks especially a breast or udder :  suckling
> b :  a device for creating or regulating suction (as a piston or valve in a pump)
> c :  a pipe or tube through which something is drawn by suction
> d (1) :  an organ in various animals for adhering or holding (2) :  a mouth (as of a leech) adapted for sucking or adhering
> 2:  a shoot from the roots or lower part of the stem of a plant
> 3:  any of numerous chiefly North American freshwater bony fishes (family Catostomidae) closely related to the carps but distinguished from them especially by the structure of the mouth which usually has thick soft lips  compare hog sucker, white sucker
> 4:  lollipop 1
> 5a :  a person easily cheated or deceived
> b :  a person irresistibly attracted by something specified <a sucker for ghost stories>
> c used as a generalized term of reference <see if you can get that sucker working again>
> -Websters
> 
> 
> 
> nice cherry picking!  a :  a person easily cheated or deceived
> Sucker - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> chicken shit too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go all the way down to definition 5a to find the definition you think should be 1, then you call chicken shit.  You are a pimple... pop.
Click to expand...

only a chicken shit would  fain stupidity ...


----------



## daws101

HenryBHough said:


> The whole flap was nothing more than a manufactured crisis intended to take the focus off the disaster that is Obamacare.
> 
> To pay any more attention to the Duck Debacle now is to be unpatriotic.


close but no cigar...
the whole thing is most likely a put up job between the Robertson's and A&E to attract more viewers. and sell more swag...


----------



## RKMBrown

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nice cherry picking!  a :  a person easily cheated or deceived
> Sucker - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> chicken shit too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go all the way down to definition 5a to find the definition you think should be 1, then you call chicken shit.  You are a pimple... pop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only a chicken shit would  fain stupidity ...
Click to expand...


In a thread about gay sex you need to be more specific when you talk about sucking.  Geezee


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant nonsense.
> 
> As already correctly noted, no ones civil rights were violated, religious or otherwise.
> 
> This premise was proven false weeks ago in the failed Not Good thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually in all seven hundred thousand of them.
> 
> Brownie's doing a heckuva job keeping up.  He must have flipped his calendar over to January 2013.
Click to expand...


Awe the poor little Pogo has to neg multiple times for one thread.  What a sissy boy.


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go all the way down to definition 5a to find the definition you think should be 1, then you call chicken shit.  You are a pimple... pop.
> 
> 
> 
> only a chicken shit would  fain stupidity ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a thread about gay sex you need to be more specific when you talk about sucking.  Geezee
Click to expand...

if you think this thread is about gay sex or sex of any kind you might wanna knock of the internet porn for a while..
I knew you were an ignorant fuck, but damn!


----------



## RKMBrown

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> only a chicken shit would  fain stupidity ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a thread about gay sex you need to be more specific when you talk about sucking.  Geezee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you think this thread is about gay sex or sex of any kind you might wanna knock of the internet porn for a while..
> I knew you were an ignorant fuck, but damn!
Click to expand...


Awe the poor little daws ganging up with pogo to neg the christian in the room.  You fags need to find a confessional to go have sex in.

The whole nontroversy was most certainly about Phil's mentioning he's not a fan of gay sex acts.  What a retard you are.


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a thread about gay sex you need to be more specific when you talk about sucking.  Geezee
> 
> 
> 
> if you think this thread is about gay sex or sex of any kind you might wanna knock of the internet porn for a while..
> I knew you were an ignorant fuck, but damn!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awe the poor little daws ganging up with pogo to neg the christian in the room.  You fags need to find a confessional to go have sex in.
> 
> The whole nontroversy was most certainly about Phil's mentioning he's not a fan of gay sex acts.  What a retard you are.
Click to expand...

your ignorance and bigotry really shine here.
what Christian is the room? faux  christian is far more accurate.. jesus would not discriminate 
you do, making you not a christian.. 
also jesus does not like liars ...the "fags" comment is a whooper.


----------



## RKMBrown

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you think this thread is about gay sex or sex of any kind you might wanna knock of the internet porn for a while..
> I knew you were an ignorant fuck, but damn!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awe the poor little daws ganging up with pogo to neg the christian in the room.  You fags need to find a confessional to go have sex in.
> 
> The whole nontroversy was most certainly about Phil's mentioning he's not a fan of gay sex acts.  What a retard you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your ignorance and bigotry really shine here.
> what Christian is the room? faux  christian is far more accurate.. jesus would not discriminate
> you do, making you not a christian..
> also jesus does not like liars ...the "fags" comment is a whooper.
Click to expand...


Well your acting in concert with the negger (Pogo), so I just assumed you two must be butt brothers.  
Where did I discriminate?  Now Phil and I have to give you a blow job or we are discriminating against you? WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## daws101

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awe the poor little daws ganging up with pogo to neg the christian in the room.  You fags need to find a confessional to go have sex in.
> 
> The whole nontroversy was most certainly about Phil's mentioning he's not a fan of gay sex acts.  What a retard you are.
> 
> 
> 
> your ignorance and bigotry really shine here.
> what Christian is the room? faux  christian is far more accurate.. jesus would not discriminate
> you do, making you not a christian..
> also jesus does not like liars ...the "fags" comment is a whooper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well your acting in concert with the negger (Pogo), so I just assumed you two must be butt brothers.
> Where did I discriminate?  Now Phil and I have to give you a blow job or we are discriminating against you? WTF is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

still discriminating ,making false assumptions and lying about it... just can't help yourself, can you.
oh btw stop talking  about Phil Robertson like you're his best bud...unless you enjoy acting like a stalker.


----------



## thanatos144

Liberals are bigots they attack anyone not like them and Phil still kicked their ass 

tapatalk post


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> Liberals are bigots they attack anyone not like them and Phil still kicked their ass
> 
> tapatalk post


only is your wildest wet dream....


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are bigots they attack anyone not like them and Phil still kicked their ass
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> only is your wildest wet dream....
Click to expand...


Reality foreign to you huh? 

tapatalk post


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are bigots they attack anyone not like them and Phil still kicked their ass
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> only is your wildest wet dream....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality foreign to you huh?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

no it is to you though..
especially if you think all your whining about  Robertson's civil rights had any effect on the outcome....


----------



## Katzndogz

RKMBrown said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights.  See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page
> 
> 
> 
> J
> Ignorant nonsense.
> 
> As already correctly noted, no ones civil rights were violated, religious or otherwise.
> 
> This premise was proven false weeks ago in the failed Not Good thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil rights are ignorant nonsense?  You libtards are pieces of dog shit.
Click to expand...


Robertson's civil rights were not violated.  Duck Dynasty is getting ready to obliterate American Idol.


----------



## tinydancer

My husband has bought me their series. OMG I love these guys.


----------



## tinydancer

Okey dokey how is it that just because one guy aka Phil doesn't want to fuck another man up the butt homophobic?

And that Phil is the weird one? 

I'm sorry. I'm with Phil. I find nothing attractive about an asshole. Now obviously others have different tastes and by all means go where your heart leads you but don't insult any one of us who doesn't understand the lure of fucking some one up the ass.


----------



## Lumpy 1

tinydancer said:


> Okey dokey how is it that just because one guy aka Phil doesn't want to fuck another man up the butt homophobic?
> 
> And that Phil is the weird one?
> 
> I'm sorry. I'm with Phil. I find nothing attractive about an asshole. Now obviously others have different tastes and by all means go where your heart leads you but don't insult any one of us who doesn't understand the lure of fucking some one up the ass.



I wish you'd post more in regards to what you do like..just sayin..


----------



## Samson

Lumpy 1 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okey dokey how is it that just because one guy aka Phil doesn't want to fuck another man up the butt homophobic?
> 
> And that Phil is the weird one?
> 
> I'm sorry. I'm with Phil. I find nothing attractive about an asshole. Now obviously others have different tastes and by all means go where your heart leads you but don't insult any one of us who doesn't understand the lure of fucking some one up the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you'd post more in regards to what you do like..just sayin..
Click to expand...





I just like it when she talks about assholes she finds unattractive.


----------



## American_Jihad

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, those things talked about killing fetuses and women because they were PROPERTY.
> 
> You see, that's the thing. The Christian oppossition to contraception used to be "keeping the women in their place as property."
> 
> So you killed them if they got knocked up by another guy or if you were trying to steal a neighboring tribes land and wanted to wipe out their seed.  Women were property.
> 
> And then the ladies stopped putting up with that, and SUDDENLY you guys got all concerned about the "babies".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such  twisted mother f*****
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am.
> 
> Doesn't take away from my point, though.
> 
> The thing is, what you guys want to do is cherry pick from the bible the verses that support your worldview, while ignoring the ones that are just batshit crazy.
> 
> *We don't kill women anymore for not being virgins on their wedding nights.  Most people would consider this a positive development.*
Click to expand...


JoeBlow, you forgot yo islamic friends say different...

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...for+not+being+virgins+on+their+wedding+nights


...


----------

