Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What, in your mind, is sinful?
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 says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: Dont be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlersthey wont inherit the kingdom of God. Dont deceive yourself. Its not right.
Short version: God Hates Fags.
What, in your mind, is sinful?
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 says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: Dont be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlersthey wont inherit the kingdom of God. Dont deceive yourself. Its not right.
Short version: God Hates Fags.
Oh I don't know, lumping gays in with bestiality and claiming that Jim Crow era Colored folks didn't sing the Blues is hardly one thing!
"Happy Holidays"
He was asked what acts he considered sinful. then he gave a list. he did not say that gays liked sex with animals----------even though some may.
Robertson put homosexuality in the same category as bestiality.
I find the people who say, like Phil, they were hellraisers and sinners previous to them finding Jesus to be some of the most uncomprimising, self righteous people I have ever met.
You're being onerous.
Martin Bashir had been there for years. A good bit longer than Beck was with Fox.
Upon further reflection, and after meeting with the president of MSNBC, I have tendered my resignation. It is my sincere hope that all of my colleagues, at this special network, will be allowed to focus on the issues that matter without the distraction of myself or my ill-judged comments.
Such specific terminology does not indicate termination. Note the lack of a press release by the network indicating he was 'relieved of his duties.'
I usually agree with you TK, but a forced resignation is a firing. He was fired.
Was he forced? Normally, it doesn't take three weeks to be 'forced' to do anything. Normally being forced involves a certain aspect of immediacy. A la Nixon's resignation. "I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow."
Oh I don't know, lumping gays in with bestiality and claiming that Jim Crow era Colored folks didn't sing the Blues is hardly one thing!
"Happy Holidays"
He was asked what acts he considered sinful. then he gave a list. he did not say that gays liked sex with animals----------even though some may.
Robertson put homosexuality in the same category as bestiality.
I find the people who say, like Phil, they were hell raisers and sinners previous to them finding Jesus to be some of the most uncompromising, self righteous people I have ever met.
Oh I don't know, lumping gays in with bestiality and claiming that Jim Crow era Colored folks didn't sing the Blues is hardly one thing!
"Happy Holidays"
He was asked what acts he considered sinful. then he gave a list. he did not say that gays liked sex with animals----------even though some may.
Robertson put homosexuality in the same category as bestiality.
the fact remains-------most KKK members were democrats. Rant all you want, you cannot change that fact.
I just got done saying -- the entire power structure of the white South were Democrats in that time. Therefore simple math tells us anybody who joined the KKK, if they had a political party it was going to be the DP. Just as present-day ones like David Duke (former Grand Wizard and Congresscritter from your own state) are Republicans.
Does that make Republicans racists?
OK then.
This idea you paid posters are trying to foment that racism (a character trait) is somehow a political party plank is dishonest bullshit.
David Duke was and is a racist asshole, when he ran for governer we had a choice between the klansman and the criminal----------we chose the criminal Edwin Edwards. Duke was rejected by Louisiana. I think he is in some skinhead group in europe now.
Friday 06 December 2013
David Duke, former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, has been kicked out of Italy, where he was allegedly trying to establish a pan-European neo-Nazi group.
An Italian court said Duke, a Holocaust denier who ran for the US presidency in 1992 and 1998, was "socially dangerous for his racist and anti-semitic views". The court yesterday backed enforcing a Swiss travel and residence ban against the 63-year-old, which is valid across the whole Schengen area.
Luciano Meneghetti, deputy police chief in the northern Italian province of Belluno, told Reuters that Duke moved to the Valle di Cadore mountain village after being granted a visa to study and write there by the Italian embassy in Malta.
When police discovered the ban, which was made in 2009, Duke lodged an appeal with the Belluno administrative court to avoid expulsion.
And, according to the International business Times, the sentence added: "He was also previously arrested and expelled from the Czech Republic as suspected of promoting the launch of a movement for the suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms."
Duke's lawyer Filippo Augusto said he left the country immediately. He could appeal again.
I usually agree with you TK, but a forced resignation is a firing. He was fired.
Was he forced? Normally, it doesn't take three weeks to be 'forced' to do anything. Normally being forced involves a certain aspect of immediacy. A la Nixon's resignation. "I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow."
That statement followed over a year of background development. False analogy.
Again, you don't resign at the nadir of your value. That's insane. Bashir was fired, and that's obvious. Unless you're saying you believe everything MSNBC says...
David Duke was and is a racist asshole, when he ran for governer we had a choice between the klansman and the criminal----------we chose the criminal Edwin Edwards. Duke was rejected by Louisiana. I think he is in some skinhead group in europe now.
I remember it well. Bumper stickers abounded saying "Vote for the crook-- it's important" (referring to Edwards). Whether he was accepted at one level or rejected at another is irrelevant; my point is that he did so as a Republican -- which puts the lie to your false association fallacy.
Lincoln was a republican
republicans passed the civil rights act
Once again, that's bullshit, Squeaky. Provably.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
BOTH parties passed it. And if you really need a scoreboard, you get 152 D to 138 R (House) and 46 D to 27 R (Senate). Doesn't work. But look at the stark difference between North and South within each party. That tells you what's really going on.
Bush 43 had more minorities in his administration than any president before or after
There IS only one president after, and that administration isn't finished yet so that's a nonstarter. As for before, it's the passage of time. Duh.
Or are you still trying to sell the snake oil that racism -- a character trait -- is somehow a political plank?
![]()
the point, which you seem unable to grasp, is that the civil rights act would not have passed without republican votes. It is also a fact the democrat Byrd tried to fillibuster the bill.
If the dems would stop the false claim that they have always been the party of integration and tolerance it would help the dialog, a little truth is good for everyone.
UPDATE:
Looks like the boycott is working. A&E lost 6.4 million viewers during the marathon last night in protest of Phil Robertson's suspension.
I guess the OP's point was that Robertson should be able to say anything he wants and people who hear it are unfair for judging a mans words and reacting to it.
Welcome to the real world
Reacting? Do you react by ruining someone because you disagree with them?
No. Logic dictates you tolerate them, their views have no direct impact on you. Just as you insist homosexuality does.
So by that line of reasoning, should that concept also be applied to homosexuals versus Christians?
Words have consequences. Didnt you know that?
Or are you saying that anyone should be able to say anything and everyone has to deal with it? I'd like to see you take that stance on public Antisemitism.
Oh oh wait...but THATS different, right?