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

[Foxfyre]

FBI has sovereign immunity. FBI INVESTIGATES civil rights cases.
ACLU never files lawsuits for monetary damages for themselves.

Well I'm sorry, but the evidence is pretty strong that you're wrong about the FBI's sovereign immunity as there are a number of active lawsuits pending as we speak here. And the ACLU has profited by many hundreds of thousands if not millions in legal fees collected from we the taxpayer which of course is their primary motive in filing many of the lawsuits they file against varius entities. You could find that out for yourself with even a cursory google effort, but oh well. . . .

And neither of those things has anything to do with how we, the people, should see the flap between Phil Robertson and GLAAD.

What active lawsuits? Car wrecks that they accept liability? Other ENTITIES, not individuals?
Were the FBI agents ACTIVE IN crime? That is a CRIMINAL case, NOT a civil case.
FBI has sovereign immunity in ALL civil litigation unless they WAIVE that immunity.
NO crime has immunity. I am speaking of CIVIL cases as that is the discussion. LIBEL is a civil case.
As for the ACLU, they never sue for money for themselves.
Please, respectfully, how could they? That makes absolutely no sense at all. ACLU comes in as "friend of the court" status on constitutional issues.
There are no monetary damages to be argued over.
Respectfully, you are dead wrong with your claims that ACLU files law suits to make money.

No I am not wrong in either case. I've done my homework. I suggest you do yours with a simple cursory google search, It didn't take me 5 seconds to find civil lawsuits filed against the FBI. And the ACLU does not file lawsuits to garner judgments for themselves. That is true. They file lawsuits to net the very lucrative government money--courtesy of us--that they are paid to file and win the lawsuits. And it is an enormous chunk of change. And they scour every crook and cranny trying to find some 'victim' or manufacture one to represent to do that.

But yes, back to Phil Robertson. As it turned out he indeed was not harmed. But it was definitely GLAAD's intent to harm him. And it is that which ethical people should be taking a good long look.

 

[koshergrl]

FBI has sovereign immunity. FBI INVESTIGATES civil rights cases.
ACLU never files lawsuits for monetary damages for themselves.

Well I'm sorry, but the evidence is pretty strong that you're wrong about the FBI's sovereign immunity as there are a number of active lawsuits pending as we speak here. And the ACLU has profited by many hundreds of thousands if not millions in legal fees collected from we the taxpayer which of course is their primary motive in filing many of the lawsuits they file against varius entities. You could find that out for yourself with even a cursory google effort, but oh well. . . .

And neither of those things has anything to do with how we, the people, should see the flap between Phil Robertson and GLAAD.

What active lawsuits? Car wrecks that they accept liability? Other ENTITIES, not individuals?
Were the FBI agents ACTIVE IN crime? That is a CRIMINAL case, NOT a civil case.
FBI has sovereign immunity in ALL civil litigation unless they WAIVE that immunity.
NO crime has immunity. I am speaking of CIVIL cases as that is the discussion. LIBEL is a civil case.
As for the ACLU, they never sue for money for themselves.
Please, respectfully, how could they? That makes absolutely no sense at all. ACLU comes in as "friend of the court" status on constitutional issues.
There are no monetary damages to be argued over.
Respectfully, you are dead wrong with your claims that ACLU files law suits to make money.

You can sue the FBI.

 

[Gadawg73]

Let me explain the law one more time:
1. NO government entity can be sued for civil actions. Unless they stipulate and accept liability.
2. ALL Federal entities CAN be sued in civil court for CRIMINAL actions.
Sovereign immunity applies to civil actions of government entities.
Without it the government would be in court 24/7 on frivolous civil actions based on civil violations only.
When the government commits CRIMES, they are always liable in civil actions and sovereign immunity never applies.
That is the LAW in all Federal entities.
YOU CAN NOT SUE the FBI for alleged civil violations. They have sovereign immunity.
LIBEL is a CIVIL violation and NOT criminal.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well I'm sorry, but the evidence is pretty strong that you're wrong about the FBI's sovereign immunity as there are a number of active lawsuits pending as we speak here. And the ACLU has profited by many hundreds of thousands if not millions in legal fees collected from we the taxpayer which of course is their primary motive in filing many of the lawsuits they file against varius entities. You could find that out for yourself with even a cursory google effort, but oh well. . . .

And neither of those things has anything to do with how we, the people, should see the flap between Phil Robertson and GLAAD.

What active lawsuits? Car wrecks that they accept liability? Other ENTITIES, not individuals?
Were the FBI agents ACTIVE IN crime? That is a CRIMINAL case, NOT a civil case.
FBI has sovereign immunity in ALL civil litigation unless they WAIVE that immunity.
NO crime has immunity. I am speaking of CIVIL cases as that is the discussion. LIBEL is a civil case.
As for the ACLU, they never sue for money for themselves.
Please, respectfully, how could they? That makes absolutely no sense at all. ACLU comes in as "friend of the court" status on constitutional issues.
There are no monetary damages to be argued over.
Respectfully, you are dead wrong with your claims that ACLU files law suits to make money.

No I am not wrong in either case. I've done my homework. I suggest you do yours with a simple cursory google search, It didn't take me 5 seconds to find civil lawsuits filed against the FBI. And the ACLU does not file lawsuits to garner judgments for themselves. That is true. They file lawsuits to net the very lucrative government money--courtesy of us--that they are paid to file and win the lawsuits. And it is an enormous chunk of change. And they scour every crook and cranny trying to find some 'victim' or manufacture one to represent to do that.

But yes, back to Phil Robertson. As it turned out he indeed was not harmed. But it was definitely GLAAD's intent to harm him. And it is that which ethical people should be taking a good long look.

LOL, you believe juries award monetary damages to ACLU for "filing lawsuits".
Beyond eat up with the dumb ass.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well I'm sorry, but the evidence is pretty strong that you're wrong about the FBI's sovereign immunity as there are a number of active lawsuits pending as we speak here. And the ACLU has profited by many hundreds of thousands if not millions in legal fees collected from we the taxpayer which of course is their primary motive in filing many of the lawsuits they file against varius entities. You could find that out for yourself with even a cursory google effort, but oh well. . . .

And neither of those things has anything to do with how we, the people, should see the flap between Phil Robertson and GLAAD.

What active lawsuits? Car wrecks that they accept liability? Other ENTITIES, not individuals?
Were the FBI agents ACTIVE IN crime? That is a CRIMINAL case, NOT a civil case.
FBI has sovereign immunity in ALL civil litigation unless they WAIVE that immunity.
NO crime has immunity. I am speaking of CIVIL cases as that is the discussion. LIBEL is a civil case.
As for the ACLU, they never sue for money for themselves.
Please, respectfully, how could they? That makes absolutely no sense at all. ACLU comes in as "friend of the court" status on constitutional issues.
There are no monetary damages to be argued over.
Respectfully, you are dead wrong with your claims that ACLU files law suits to make money.

No I am not wrong in either case. I've done my homework. I suggest you do yours with a simple cursory google search, It didn't take me 5 seconds to find civil lawsuits filed against the FBI. And the ACLU does not file lawsuits to garner judgments for themselves. That is true. They file lawsuits to net the very lucrative government money--courtesy of us--that they are paid to file and win the lawsuits. And it is an enormous chunk of change. And they scour every crook and cranny trying to find some 'victim' or manufacture one to represent to do that.

But yes, back to Phil Robertson. As it turned out he indeed was not harmed. But it was definitely GLAAD's intent to harm him. And it is that which ethical people should be taking a good long look.

Wow, if you do not understand the difference between a civil action based on civil violations and those filed based ON CRIMINAL actions then we need not go any further.
All the cases filed against the FBI or any federal entity must have a criminal violation of the law against a particular agency and/or employee of that agency to make it past summary judgment to hear civil damages as a result of CRIMINAL negligence on behalf of that government entity and/or employee.
NO CIVIL CASE can be filed and make it past summary judgment based on LIBEL or any other CIVIL violation or alleged civil violation on behalf of any government entity.
Government has sovereign immunity against alleged CIVIL violations of their entities/employees unless they accept liability.
That is bottom line FACT no matter how hard you good folks spin it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What active lawsuits? Car wrecks that they accept liability? Other ENTITIES, not individuals?
Were the FBI agents ACTIVE IN crime? That is a CRIMINAL case, NOT a civil case.
FBI has sovereign immunity in ALL civil litigation unless they WAIVE that immunity.
NO crime has immunity. I am speaking of CIVIL cases as that is the discussion. LIBEL is a civil case.
As for the ACLU, they never sue for money for themselves.
Please, respectfully, how could they? That makes absolutely no sense at all. ACLU comes in as "friend of the court" status on constitutional issues.
There are no monetary damages to be argued over.
Respectfully, you are dead wrong with your claims that ACLU files law suits to make money.

No I am not wrong in either case. I've done my homework. I suggest you do yours with a simple cursory google search, It didn't take me 5 seconds to find civil lawsuits filed against the FBI. And the ACLU does not file lawsuits to garner judgments for themselves. That is true. They file lawsuits to net the very lucrative government money--courtesy of us--that they are paid to file and win the lawsuits. And it is an enormous chunk of change. And they scour every crook and cranny trying to find some 'victim' or manufacture one to represent to do that.

But yes, back to Phil Robertson. As it turned out he indeed was not harmed. But it was definitely GLAAD's intent to harm him. And it is that which ethical people should be taking a good long look.

LOL, you believe juries award monetary damages to ACLU for "filing lawsuits".
Beyond eat up with the dumb ass.

So you don't read well? I don't believe I said a word about juries. Have you googled those civil suits filed against the FBI yet?

And here's the skinny on federal tax dollars going to the ACLU for filing civil rights suits:
Peter Ferrara: ACLU Welfare | The American Civil Rights Union

Now can we please get back to the OP?

 

[Gadawg73]

No I am not wrong in either case. I've done my homework. I suggest you do yours with a simple cursory google search, It didn't take me 5 seconds to find civil lawsuits filed against the FBI. And the ACLU does not file lawsuits to garner judgments for themselves. That is true. They file lawsuits to net the very lucrative government money--courtesy of us--that they are paid to file and win the lawsuits. And it is an enormous chunk of change. And they scour every crook and cranny trying to find some 'victim' or manufacture one to represent to do that.

But yes, back to Phil Robertson. As it turned out he indeed was not harmed. But it was definitely GLAAD's intent to harm him. And it is that which ethical people should be taking a good long look.

LOL, you believe juries award monetary damages to ACLU for "filing lawsuits".
Beyond eat up with the dumb ass.

So you don't read well? I don't believe I said a word about juries. Have you googled those civil suits filed against the FBI yet?

And here's the skinny on federal tax dollars going to the ACLU for filing civil rights suits:
Peter Ferrara: ACLU Welfare | The American Civil Rights Union

Now can we please get back to the OP?

"successfully suing"
How is that a frivolous law suit?
ALL of those cases are with 100% merit.
You should be glad someone brought those cases.
YOU claimed they were "FRIVOLOUS".
Legal fees are not damages.

 

[tinydancer]

Oh my!!!! My husband signed me up! It's Ukrainian Christmas and this is my present. I just got the notice.

I'm doing cartwheels in my living room!Real Tree has been my fashion central for years. But now I'm a duckie!!!!!!!

 

[Dragonlady]

I can think of no better way to control women than to encourage them to engage in extra marital sex, so they are burdened with children and dependent upon a progressive entitlement system that pays them to continue to have children with losers...all the while telling them it is their right to have irresponsible sex, and their duty to support statist government and abortion.

It all but guarantees they will never advance in life, that they won't get an education, and they will continue to faithfully vote the leftist ticket.

You could not be more wrong. The Christian right has fought against sex education in schools, the right for choice regarding abortion, and leading into the last election, some Republican candidates were saying that birth control of any kind should be banned.

How about giving young women facts about their bodies and how they function, giving them information on birth control and preventing pregnancy, instead of teaching them that their most valuble possession is their hymen and that all of their worth and value as a human being is tied to it. That is what the chastity pledge teaches them - their only value to their husband is their virginity.

Lots of girls and women, armed with information regarding, biology, birth control and safe sex practices, manage to achieve adulthood, a good education, and a great career, without getting pregnant and jeopardizing these things. KG holds women in such low esteem to think that women who have sex are unable to do these things.

People don't vote for Democrats because they're dependent on the public purse. They vote for Democrats because the Republicans don't give a rats ass for anyone other than rich white men and corporations. Their platform is anti-women, anti-minorities and anti-gay. The states most dependent on social programs, are red states.

Where Are the 47% of Americans Who Pay No Income Taxes? - David A. Graham - The Atlantic

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yepp.

 

[Jose1]

Humm ...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Humm ...

and that is supposed to mean....

 

[Pogo]

Humm ...

and that is supposed to mean....

-- bandwidth we'll never get back?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Humm ...

and that is supposed to mean....

-- bandwidth we'll never get back?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZziK9yqgV5c]Sarah Brightman Don't Cry For Me Argentina - YouTube[/ame]

 

[beagle9]

1 can not sue the FBI for libel.
You sue the deepest pockets and would be the billion dollar entity Cox Enterprises.
Go look into the case(s) as NBC and CNN were also sued.
Go look into it.

actually you can sue the FBI.... They get sued all the fucking time.

Wrong again. You are batting 100%.
In the United States of America the Federal government and ALL of it's entities, including the FBI, have SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY and MAY NOT BE SUED.

Stick to whatever you know best because this is not it. I mean no disrespect of you.
However, if you want to listen and learn I can show you the facts.
Because your claim that "they get sued all the fucking time" is false. If you sue them the Judge immediately DISMISSES THE CASE because of sovereign immunity unless the government entity AGREES TO BE SUED, which is maybe 1 in 10,000 times if that.
Sovereign immunity the Federal government has 100%.
Or you can keep listening to the ignorant like Allie Babble aka koshergirl aka ignorant.
The choice is yours but obvious. If you did not know what sovereign immunity is you need to start with the basics. I do not believe you to be stupid so if you are willing I can teach you.

Maybe not sue the agencies as a whole, but a member of the FBI or the government sure can be held libel for his or her individual actions always, and especially if they are caught doing something wrong to a co-worker, a citizen or a business in America. The only thing that the FBI will do next (IMHO), is they will quickly separate themselves from that individual by firing the individual. They will do this in so that the individual can be sued or face civil charges etc. after being fired from the agencies for whom would want that individual to pay for his or her crimes against another no doubt.

Some may consider this as suing the FBI or the government, otherwise if they are successful against one of it's employee's after the employee is no longer employed by that entity, and especially if the employee was fired due to the wrong he or she committed while working for that entity when the crime or crimes were committed.

Now one may have to apply pressure sometimes, and this in order to get the person out from under the protective layer in which the government or FBI is protecting that employee with, and this while he or she is still employed with these agencies in order to get them to fire the person responsible. After enough bad publicity is placed on the ones who are in question, then usually a release is obtained quickly due to that pressure, and then it is on after that (raw meat for the taking), and rightly so if committed crimes while working for these agencies in which then had to fire them because of. No one is immune from prosecution if they do wrong, so otherwise there is just is a process that everything goes through in order to get the job done, but I assure you that it will get done if it needs to get done, and rightly so.

 

[Faun]

Ratings are out for Duck Dynasty's 2014 season premier ..... seems they lost a boat-load of viewers from last season's premier.

 

[beagle9]

Ratings are out for Duck Dynasty's 2014 season premier ..... seems they lost a boat-load of viewers from last season's premier.

So the show is now judged on the first opening day or start of the new season eh ? Kidding me right ? Yall got to come up with a lot better than this idiocy ya know. Wow!

I like the way they try and group the show in with other shows ratings, just to hide their (the industries) bias in these new instant attacks in which are to start their new season of denial of the truth in America, and a new round of hate in which they (the industry) is going to be engaging in also for 2014. So Sad watching the now taken over, and controlled ((by devils)) entertainment industry in this nation these days. How do you know that it wasn't A&E's downed ratings for the suspending of Phil unjustly, and because the show is still affiliated with A&E, and that it may suffer lower ratings all because of remaining affiliated with A&E ? How about the other shows on A&E, are they down on the ratings in the new year also or just as well ? One thing that may come out of all of this, is that we will soon know the percentage in which the industry is being controlled by devils, and that will be a great thing. Because if boycotts are going to be the new norm, then lets get it on for 2014 baby. It don't need to stop with the entertainment industry only either, it needs to go into everything that has been taken over by a few while the majority of the people slept or had trusted way to long in this nation. Faun your pic is fitting for you upon your critique of these ratings for DD. I'm just sayin.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ratings are out for Duck Dynasty's 2014 season premier ..... seems they lost a boat-load of viewers from last season's premier.

So the show is now judged on the first opening day or start of the new season eh ? Kidding me right ? Yall got to come up with a lot better than this idiocy ya know. Wow!

I like the way they try and group the show in with other shows ratings, just to hide their (the industries) bias in these new instant attacks in which are to start their new season of denial of the truth in America, and a new round of hate in which they (the industry) is going to be engaging in also for 2014. So Sad watching the now taken over, and controlled ((by devils)) entertainment industry in this nation these days. How do you know that it wasn't A&E's downed ratings for the suspending of Phil unjustly, and because the show is still affiliated with A&E, and that it may suffer lower ratings all because of remaining affiliated with A&E ? How about the other shows on A&E, are they down on the ratings in the new year also or just as well ? One thing that may come out of all of this, is that we will soon know the percentage in which the industry is being controlled by devils, and that will be a great thing. Because if boycotts are going to be the new norm, then lets get it on for 2014 baby. It don't need to stop with the entertainment industry only either, it needs to go into everything that has been taken over by a few while the majority of the people slept or had trusted way to long in this nation.

Exactly. A LOT of ratings are down quite a bit this season. NBC's "Biggest Loser" significantly down in ratings. Fox's "American Idol" posted its lowest viewership for its 2014 premiere in the show's history. All major networks have numbers that are down. It is a rare new show coming onto television that is able to last more than a couple or three seasons anymore--most just aren't making it. And even among those that are successful and achieve longievity, those with the highest ratings overall will generally suffer the largest percentage loss in these periodic down

There are always those in the political peanut gallery who cheer and applaud if they can pretend this program or that program or Fox News is down in ratings. But they rarely ever have enough sense to check to see if an individual program really is in trouble or if it is just a general cyclical trend.

 

[Faun]

Ratings are out for Duck Dynasty's 2014 season premier ..... seems they lost a boat-load of viewers from last season's premier.

So the show is now judged on the first opening day or start of the new season eh ? Kidding me right ? Yall got to come up with a lot better than this idiocy ya know. Wow!

I like the way they try and group the show in with other shows ratings, just to hide their (the industries) bias in these new instant attacks in which are to start their new season of denial of the truth in America, and a new round of hate in which they (the industry) is going to be engaging in also for 2014. So Sad watching the now taken over, and controlled ((by devils)) entertainment industry in this nation these days. How do you know that it wasn't A&E's downed ratings for the suspending of Phil unjustly, and because the show is still affiliated with A&E, and that it may suffer lower ratings all because of remaining affiliated with A&E ? How about the other shows on A&E, are they down on the ratings in the new year also or just as well ? One thing that may come out of all of this, is that we will soon know the percentage in which the industry is being controlled by devils, and that will be a great thing. Because if boycotts are going to be the new norm, then lets get it on for 2014 baby. It don't need to stop with the entertainment industry only either, it needs to go into everything that has been taken over by a few while the majority of the people slept or had trusted way to long in this nation. Faun your pic is fitting for you upon your critique of these ratings for DD. I'm just sayin.

I'm not judging the show based on one episode. I'm pointing out the viewership for their season premier is way down from the previous year's premier. That has no bearing on their next episode. But they lost 3.3 million viewers (28%) from their last [record breaking] premier. As for why it's down so much is anyone's speculation; though yours makes little sense. Why would Phil Robertson supporters not watch his show because they're mad at A&E for suspending him? That only hurts Phil Robertson. I would think if anything, his supporters would have tuned in just to show how popular Phil Robertson and his gay bashing views are.