Anti-PC people making a mistake on the Duck Dynasty story

[Katzndogz]

Who the hell tried to force Phil into anything? He did an interview; nobody told him what to say. What the fuck did the GQ people do? Did you even read the interview? Doesn't sound like it.

Umm what part of suspending Phil don't you understand ? GQ knew the firestorm that asking certain questions would cause, but they did it anyway, almost getting Phil fired or at least they may have thought that they did is what I think.

I just wonder if the whole team at GQ was involved or not, otherwise knowing all to well as to how that interview would be conducted when it was conducted ?

From interviews with the family, they thought the GQ interview was a set up. The network has long been trying to get the Robertsons to tone down the references to God and Jesus, and keep guns off the show. This interview was supposed to create a firestorm of public opinion against the show enough to make the Robertsons toe the politically correct line. What the network didn't expect was the backlash, nor the Robertsons telling the network to take a hike.

 

[Bfgrn]

Who the hell tried to force Phil into anything? He did an interview; nobody told him what to say. What the fuck did the GQ people do? Did you even read the interview? Doesn't sound like it.

Umm what part of suspending Phil don't you understand ? GQ knew the firestorm that asking certain questions would cause, but they did it anyway, almost getting Phil fired or at least they may have thought that they did is what I think.

I just wonder if the whole team at GQ was involved or not, otherwise knowing all to well as to how that interview would be conducted when it was conducted ?

From interviews with the family, they thought the GQ interview was a set up. The network has long been trying to get the Robertsons to tone down the references to God and Jesus, and keep guns off the show. This interview was supposed to create a firestorm of public opinion against the show enough to make the Robertsons toe the politically correct line. What the network didn't expect was the backlash, nor the Robertsons telling the network to take a hike.

Link?

 

[zeke]

Who the hell tried to force Phil into anything? He did an interview; nobody told him what to say. What the fuck did the GQ people do? Did you even read the interview? Doesn't sound like it.

Umm what part of suspending Phil don't you understand ? GQ knew the firestorm that asking certain questions would cause, but they did it anyway, almost getting Phil fired or at least they may have thought that they did is what I think.

I just wonder if the whole team at GQ was involved or not, otherwise knowing all to well as to how that interview would be conducted when it was conducted ?

From interviews with the family, they thought the GQ interview was a set up. The network has long been trying to get the Robertsons to tone down the references to God and Jesus, and keep guns off the show. This interview was supposed to create a firestorm of public opinion against the show enough to make the Robertsons toe the politically correct line. What the network didn't expect was the backlash, nor the Robertsons telling the network to take a hike.

I gotta make sure I understand what you said. In other words, after KNOWING he was being "set up" for this interview, the idiot (Robertson) walked right in to this "set up" and said exactly what he knew would cause him issues and problems. Is that about it?

Is Robertson really that stupid? Or was this entire debacle just one great advertising scheme? Concocted by Robertson and the A&E network?

 

[Redfish]

Oh, substantially less racism today.

Just as there is substantially less homophobia than there was 30 years ago.

So as much as you might want to fantasize about participating in a gay bashing[/SIZE][/B], the reality is, you'll probably be charged with a hate crime and go to jail for it.

Lot's of gay stuff going on in prison. Your head would probably explode.

There is no end to your shame is there ? I mean why do your put words into peoples mouths or fantasize what people are thinking, when they aren't thinking such as you suggest that they are at all ? This is as desperate as it gets for you, but you don't care do you ? What part of the word "Unfortunately" in which he led with don't you understand ??

When I see a homophobic fuck say, "unfortunately there might be some attacks".

It's kind of like listening to a mobster say, "This is a nice store, it would be terrible if something happened to it..."

Here's the thing. When homophobes do commit crimes, we charge them with hate crimes and we COMPLETELY RUIN THEIR LIVES.

Problem solved.

OK, Joey boy. One more time. why is it worse if someone attacks you because you are gay than if the same guy attacks you to steal your money?


Is "hate crime" legislation not punishment for thoughts?

Why do you advocate government thought control? Welcome to north korea---they punish thoughts too.

 

[zeke]

There is no end to your shame is there ? I mean why do your put words into peoples mouths or fantasize what people are thinking, when they aren't thinking such as you suggest that they are at all ? This is as desperate as it gets for you, but you don't care do you ? What part of the word "Unfortunately" in which he led with don't you understand ??

When I see a homophobic fuck say, "unfortunately there might be some attacks".

It's kind of like listening to a mobster say, "This is a nice store, it would be terrible if something happened to it..."

Here's the thing. When homophobes do commit crimes, we charge them with hate crimes and we COMPLETELY RUIN THEIR LIVES.

Problem solved.

OK, Joey boy. One more time. why is it worse if someone attacks you because you are gay than if the same guy attacks you to steal your money?


Is "hate crime" legislation not punishment for thoughts?

Why do you advocate government thought control? Welcome to north korea---they punish thoughts too.

Could it be that a robbery has an element of randomness. While attacking a gay person is done with specific intent to attack a gay person. In other words; gays get attacked and don't even get robbed. So what was the purpose of the attack? Hatred of a gay person.

I know those are concepts far above your limited intelligence. But there it is.

 

[Katzndogz]

Phil could have waffled or lied or whatever on the questions.

GQ had no obligation to give him softball questions.

Now you want the man to lie, instead of be left alone on certain issues, just as he probably only wanted to talk about the show, and not instead be drilled about such things as they ask him about. Pathetic!

He's not going to lie, he will take whatever opportunity offered to spread the Word as he sees it. GQ gave him that opportunity. A&E had a network representative right there, the question was approved knowing what the answer was going to be. Did they have a purpose for doing that? Of course they did.

 

[Redfish]

When I see a homophobic fuck say, "unfortunately there might be some attacks".

It's kind of like listening to a mobster say, "This is a nice store, it would be terrible if something happened to it..."

Here's the thing. When homophobes do commit crimes, we charge them with hate crimes and we COMPLETELY RUIN THEIR LIVES.

Problem solved.

OK, Joey boy. One more time. why is it worse if someone attacks you because you are gay than if the same guy attacks you to steal your money?


Is "hate crime" legislation not punishment for thoughts?

Why do you advocate government thought control? Welcome to north korea---they punish thoughts too.

Could it be that a robbery has an element of randomness. While attacking a gay person is done with specific intent to attack a gay person. In other words; gays get attacked and don't even get robbed. So what was the purpose of the attack? Hatred of a gay person.

I know those are concepts far above your limited intelligence. But there it is.

the current rash of "knockout" attacks seem to be aimed primarily at whites and jews. Are those hate crimes?

Lets say that there are two knockout attacks;
1. the first is black on black
2. the second is black on white

In both cases the injury to the victim is the same--------why would you give a harsher punishment to the guy in case 2. ?

Admit it, hate crime legislation is an attempt to mandate how people think. North Korea is a great model for how this works.

 

[Redfish]

When I see a homophobic fuck say, "unfortunately there might be some attacks".

It's kind of like listening to a mobster say, "This is a nice store, it would be terrible if something happened to it..."

Here's the thing. When homophobes do commit crimes, we charge them with hate crimes and we COMPLETELY RUIN THEIR LIVES.

Problem solved.

OK, Joey boy. One more time. why is it worse if someone attacks you because you are gay than if the same guy attacks you to steal your money?


Is "hate crime" legislation not punishment for thoughts?

Why do you advocate government thought control? Welcome to north korea---they punish thoughts too.

Could it be that a robbery has an element of randomness. While attacking a gay person is done with specific intent to attack a gay person. In other words; gays get attacked and don't even get robbed. So what was the purpose of the attack? Hatred of a gay person.

I know those are concepts far above your limited intelligence. But there it is.

and on your "random" robbery idea. Robbers usually attack women, old people, or those who look weak. So I guess every crime is a hate crime because they are not "random"

 

[squinch]

Who is Phil Robertson but a member of the sex police? He wants to tell you what to do in your bedroom?

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK, Joey boy. One more time. why is it worse if someone attacks you because you are gay than if the same guy attacks you to steal your money?


Is "hate crime" legislation not punishment for thoughts?

Why do you advocate government thought control? Welcome to north korea---they punish thoughts too.

Could it be that a robbery has an element of randomness. While attacking a gay person is done with specific intent to attack a gay person. In other words; gays get attacked and don't even get robbed. So what was the purpose of the attack? Hatred of a gay person.

I know those are concepts far above your limited intelligence. But there it is.

and on your "random" robbery idea. Robbers usually attack women, old people, or those who look weak. So I guess every crime is a hate crime because they are not "random"

Hate is the motive for the crime. The motive for snatching a purse is not hate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no end to your shame is there ? I mean why do your put words into peoples mouths or fantasize what people are thinking, when they aren't thinking such as you suggest that they are at all ? This is as desperate as it gets for you, but you don't care do you ? What part of the word "Unfortunately" in which he led with don't you understand ??

When I see a homophobic fuck say, "unfortunately there might be some attacks".

It's kind of like listening to a mobster say, "This is a nice store, it would be terrible if something happened to it..."

Here's the thing. When homophobes do commit crimes, we charge them with hate crimes and we COMPLETELY RUIN THEIR LIVES.

Problem solved.

OK, Joey boy. One more time. why is it worse if someone attacks you because you are gay than if the same guy attacks you to steal your money?


Is "hate crime" legislation not punishment for thoughts?

Why do you advocate government thought control? Welcome to north korea---they punish thoughts too.

Beating up a gay person is somewhat different from having hateful thoughts about a gay person.

I'm surprised you can't discern that difference.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no end to your shame is there ? I mean why do your put words into peoples mouths or fantasize what people are thinking, when they aren't thinking such as you suggest that they are at all ? This is as desperate as it gets for you, but you don't care do you ? What part of the word "Unfortunately" in which he led with don't you understand ??

When I see a homophobic fuck say, "unfortunately there might be some attacks".

It's kind of like listening to a mobster say, "This is a nice store, it would be terrible if something happened to it..."

Here's the thing. When homophobes do commit crimes, we charge them with hate crimes and we COMPLETELY RUIN THEIR LIVES.

Problem solved.

OK, Joey boy. One more time. why is it worse if someone attacks you because you are gay than if the same guy attacks you to steal your money?


Is "hate crime" legislation not punishment for thoughts?

Why do you advocate government thought control? Welcome to north korea---they punish thoughts too.

Well, for one thing, when they are taking my money, it isn't personal, and they aren't going to use any more violence than is necessary.

As opposed to a hate crime, where inflicting pain and humiliation IS the point.

Same reason we treat rape as a more henious crime than punching someone in the face.

 

[JoeB131]

[



the current rash of "knockout" attacks seem to be aimed primarily at whites and jews. Are those hate crimes?

Lets say that there are two knockout attacks;
1. the first is black on black
2. the second is black on white

In both cases the injury to the victim is the same--------why would you give a harsher punishment to the guy in case 2. ?

Admit it, hate crime legislation is an attempt to mandate how people think. North Korea is a great model for how this works.

THis would be the rash of "knockout" attacks that aren't actually happening and are being hyped by the media?

And frankly, guy, if you want to use North Korea as a blanket hyperbole for liberalism, maybe we should use Somalia as blanket hyperbole for conservatism/libertarianism.

I mean, it's the conservative dream in Somalia. No government, no laws, no taxes, everyone has a gun and they've got lots of crazy religion. It would be paradise for you guys if it weren't for all the darkies!!!!

 

[Redfish]

[



the current rash of "knockout" attacks seem to be aimed primarily at whites and jews. Are those hate crimes?

Lets say that there are two knockout attacks;
1. the first is black on black
2. the second is black on white

In both cases the injury to the victim is the same--------why would you give a harsher punishment to the guy in case 2. ?

Admit it, hate crime legislation is an attempt to mandate how people think. North Korea is a great model for how this works.

THis would be the rash of "knockout" attacks that aren't actually happening and are being hyped by the media?

And frankly, guy, if you want to use North Korea as a blanket hyperbole for liberalism, maybe we should use Somalia as blanket hyperbole for conservatism/libertarianism.

I mean, it's the conservative dream in Somalia. No government, no laws, no taxes, everyone has a gun and they've got lots of crazy religion. It would be paradise for you guys if it weren't for all the darkies!!!!

wrong on all counts. Somalia is in anarchy. Conservatives want limited government, not zero government.

But since you seem determined to punish based on thoughts or motive, then North Korea is the place for you.

 

[Redfish]

When I see a homophobic fuck say, "unfortunately there might be some attacks".

It's kind of like listening to a mobster say, "This is a nice store, it would be terrible if something happened to it..."

Here's the thing. When homophobes do commit crimes, we charge them with hate crimes and we COMPLETELY RUIN THEIR LIVES.

Problem solved.

OK, Joey boy. One more time. why is it worse if someone attacks you because you are gay than if the same guy attacks you to steal your money?


Is "hate crime" legislation not punishment for thoughts?

Why do you advocate government thought control? Welcome to north korea---they punish thoughts too.

Beating up a gay person is somewhat different from having hateful thoughts about a gay person.

I'm surprised you can't discern that difference.

So as I said, you want the punishment to be based on the thoughts of the perpetrator, not the crime.

why is it worse if two thugs beat up a gay guy than if they beat up a straight guy? Both victims are beat up. why is one crime worse than the other?

Do you guys not see how foolish you look on this?

 

[Redfish]

Could it be that a robbery has an element of randomness. While attacking a gay person is done with specific intent to attack a gay person. In other words; gays get attacked and don't even get robbed. So what was the purpose of the attack? Hatred of a gay person.

I know those are concepts far above your limited intelligence. But there it is.

and on your "random" robbery idea. Robbers usually attack women, old people, or those who look weak. So I guess every crime is a hate crime because they are not "random"

Hate is the motive for the crime. The motive for snatching a purse is not hate.

So the punishment should be based on the motive, not the crime? really?

 

[beagle9]

Umm what part of suspending Phil don't you understand ? GQ knew the firestorm that asking certain questions would cause, but they did it anyway, almost getting Phil fired or at least they may have thought that they did is what I think.

I just wonder if the whole team at GQ was involved or not, otherwise knowing all to well as to how that interview would be conducted when it was conducted ?

From interviews with the family, they thought the GQ interview was a set up. The network has long been trying to get the Robertsons to tone down the references to God and Jesus, and keep guns off the show. This interview was supposed to create a firestorm of public opinion against the show enough to make the Robertsons toe the politically correct line. What the network didn't expect was the backlash, nor the Robertsons telling the network to take a hike.

I gotta make sure I understand what you said. In other words, after KNOWING he was being "set up" for this interview, the idiot (Robertson) walked right in to this "set up" and said exactly what he knew would cause him issues and problems. Is that about it?

Is Robertson really that stupid? Or was this entire debacle just one great advertising scheme? Concocted by Robertson and the A&E network?

Are you so stupid that you don't understand that the Robertson's only would have known that it was another attempt to bring them down, only after what had happened, and this because the attack was mounted from a different approach and/or a new angle, and so it was seen as a set up only after the facts were known or the firestorm came shortly afterwards? The problems came not before the interview was conducted in this case, but afterwards, so what in tarnation are you talking about ? And so here you are spinning like a wheel out of control, and trying to outsmart the situation by turning it back onto the Robertson's who are innocent in the situation.

Yes they knew that there were those in the industry who were trying to get them to make it more real on the show, and this by the industry wanting them to curse maybe a little bit on the show or if they didn't then at least let them bleep some in the show a few times, you know as if they did curse a little bit to make it more real, but the Robertson's refused to do it or allow it, and that was great.

They didn't know how bad it would get though afterwards, and this as was found within the process of some who are in the industry trying to set them up for the kill, and so the trap was this time set by GQ, and it was sprung on Phil who was unaware in this new set up or attack by the industry on them, but Phil escaped from their trap because the door slammed shut on them instead of on Phil in their scheme of an interview in which they had conducted like this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

and on your "random" robbery idea. Robbers usually attack women, old people, or those who look weak. So I guess every crime is a hate crime because they are not "random"

Hate is the motive for the crime. The motive for snatching a purse is not hate.

So the punishment should be based on the motive, not the crime? really?

To an extent. Why not? Why do we have multiple levels of criminal charges when someone kills someone,

if they're all just 'murder'?

 

[beagle9]

Who is Phil Robertson but a member of the sex police? He wants to tell you what to do in your bedroom?

Quit trying to make more of this than it is, and quit trying to put words into peoples mouths or attempting to create some sort of actual intent that you think would somehow be found within their actions or their thinking when you don't know this at all, and especially when you have no proof of this that you are saying in the way that you frame it or suggest it to us.

Hey, and guess what? You don't have the numbers to back up what you are saying either, but you all have to do this, because you are BUTT hurt on this one after it didn't work out for ya huh ? LOL

 

[Redfish]

Hate is the motive for the crime. The motive for snatching a purse is not hate.

So the punishment should be based on the motive, not the crime? really?

To an extent. Why not? Why do we have multiple levels of criminal charges when someone kills someone,

if they're all just 'murder'?

not a valid analogy. premeditation is the usual determining factor in murder 1 vs murder 2, or involuntary manslaughter.

Again, you want a harsher sentence for someone who mugs a gay than for someone who mugs a straight woman or old person?

sorry, but you fail the basic test of logic.