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

[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.

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?

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.)

Irony alert!

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]

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!

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.)

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]

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...

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

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

small-d democrat - Wiktionary

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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

small-d democrat - Wiktionary

Oh, I see.. forgive me.

 

[JoeB131]

[

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]

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

What?

 

[gipper]

[

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...

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

 

[JoeB131]

[

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]

[

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...

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]

[

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.

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

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

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.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

[

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]

[

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.

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

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]

[

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!"

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

You are confusing local government issues with the national government.