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.
Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.
And which ones of those weren't Christians? And don't make the circular argument that they can't be Christians because real Christians aren't terrorists.
PS. Negged for falsely accusing me of lying.
To clarify the topic, it is on the subject of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are.
Why are you telling me and not Sunshine?
So,
what's your opinion of the attempts by the Right to silence Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, and Ed Schultz?
Those attacks are no different than GLAAD's.
It should be a lot like TORT reform. prove your case in court to take another citizen's liberty from them, or pay the cost of the proceeding. I think PR has a good case to go against these people, but him being a Christian man? I think he will turn the other cheek, and move on.Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.
It should be a lot like TORT reform. prove your case in court to take another citizen's liberty from them, or pay the cost of the proceeding. I think PR has a good case to go against these people, but him being a Christian man? I think he will turn the other cheek, and move on.Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.
Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.
So if you COULD, you would wield the power of GOVERNMENT against GLAAD.
Sure sounds like what you love to accuse liberals of. But THAT is different, right FF?
It should be a lot like TORT reform. prove your case in court to take another citizen's liberty from them, or pay the cost of the proceeding. I think PR has a good case to go against these people, but him being a Christian man? I think he will turn the other cheek, and move on.Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.
Hey Einstein. A CORPORATION took action because they didn't want any of Phil Robertson's toxic ignorance to taint their image or profits. This is a perfect example of free market capitalism, something you are oblivious to.
Phil Robertson's bestiality' remark earned Duck Dynasty' suspension
Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertsons comment to GQ magazine grouping homosexuality with bestiality was the straw that broke the camels back as far as A&Es top executive was concerned, who reportedly carefully considered all of Robertson anti-homosexual remarks before suspending Robertson from the show, according to TheWrap.
A network exec reportedly told the website that Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks, ultimately reached the suspension decision because Robertsons remarks were in conflict with the fundamental values of the company. Dubucs response was, at least in part, prompted by concerns of company employees, the executive said.
Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.
And the conservative groups targeting Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, and Ed Schultz?
I take your opinion applies to them equally. I also take it that you will never acknowledge that.
btw, here's the new conservative group Truth Revolt's petition that demanded Martin Bashir lose his job for expressing an opinion:
Stop The Sexist Martin Bashir | Truth Revolt
Do you want that to be illegal on the federal level, or leave it up to the states?
lolol
To clarify the topic, it is on the subject of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are.
Why are you telling me and not Sunshine?
So,
what's your opinion of the attempts by the Right to silence Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, and Ed Schultz?
Those attacks are no different than GLAAD's.
I am telling you and everybody else that the topic of the thread is not you and it is not Sunshine and it isn't who is or is not a Christian.
What attempts have been made by the right to silence Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, and Ed Schultz? Has some conservative group petitioned, theatened, or demanded that HBO or MSNBC fire them? I am unaware of any such organized effort, but if any group has done so then they are as guilty of hateful and destructive intolerance as GLAAD is.
I already have a full time job and go to school full time...but thanks.
and yet... I don't care.
And yet....I don't care that you don't care....
And I think TruthRevolt is just as wrong as GLAAD when they tried to get Bashir fired if that is a legitimate website. I never heard of TruthRevolt until just now.
And I think TruthRevolt is just as wrong as GLAAD when they tried to get Bashir fired if that is a legitimate website. I never heard of TruthRevolt until just now.
This is where I would respectfully disagree with you. If Duck Dynasty dad had implied that homosexuals mouths should be defecated in then I would support GLAADS position. I don't care that Duck Dynasty dad expressed his views on homosexuality but I think suggesting that people should defecate in homosexuals mouths would be paramount to endorsing violence.
Endorsing violence is where I would draw the line when it comes to speech.
A lot of selective reading going on. Hey those of you with reading dysfunction: If I say that the Bible is against adultery, lying, and cheating, that is not saying that those who lie are guilty of adultery or cheating. (Muttering I don't know why I bother because they'll never get it.)
But even that is not the point of the thread which is the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are.
Phil Robertson may believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but he was perfectly willing to allow gay people to be who and what they are. He wasn't out attacking anybody or asking, let alone demanding, that anybody be punished or harmed in any way because he or she is gay.
GLAAD was not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who and what he is which is a fundamentalist Christian who interprets what the Bible says in a fundamentalist way. They demanded that he be punished in a material way.
Some here think that is just hunky dory okay. Some of us don't.
A lot of selective reading going on. Hey those of you with reading dysfunction: If I say that the Bible is against adultery, lying, and cheating, that is not saying that those who lie are guilty of adultery or cheating. (Muttering I don't know why I bother because they'll never get it.)
But even that is not the point of the thread which is the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are.
Phil Robertson may believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but he was perfectly willing to allow gay people to be who and what they are. He wasn't out attacking anybody or asking, let alone demanding, that anybody be punished or harmed in any way because he or she is gay.
GLAAD was not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who and what he is which is a fundamentalist Christian who interprets what the Bible says in a fundamentalist way. They demanded that he be punished in a material way.
Some here think that is just hunky dory okay. Some of us don't.
Interesting, you focus all your hatred and blame on GLAAD, yet it was a very powerful corporate executive who made the decision.
And a very rude one too. Foxy has been very polite. Me, not so much when it comes to assholes. So...ok. Asshole Rhodes Scholar. Gotcha. Not.
I guess you're simply not used to the M.O. Its tire, played, we've seen it before. Nobdody buys it; it's just accepted by the simpler people that if you cloak your support into some supposedly intellectual argument, it will carry more weight. Sort of like if someone has an English accent, they are seen as being smarter.
Serioulsy...do you think Foxy would be anywhere near this if this dude from DD had come out in favor of gay rights and A&E had suspended him because of it? If you do, you're either an idiot or a liar; or both.
Foxy is one of the most tolerant, kind, fair individuals I have ever met on this board. So yes, she would and has stood up for rights regardless of whose are being trampled.
Which still makes you an asshole.
A lot of selective reading going on. Hey those of you with reading dysfunction: If I say that the Bible is against adultery, lying, and cheating, that is not saying that those who lie are guilty of adultery or cheating. (Muttering I don't know why I bother because they'll never get it.)
But even that is not the point of the thread which is the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are.
Phil Robertson may believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but he was perfectly willing to allow gay people to be who and what they are. He wasn't out attacking anybody or asking, let alone demanding, that anybody be punished or harmed in any way because he or she is gay.
GLAAD was not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who and what he is which is a fundamentalist Christian who interprets what the Bible says in a fundamentalist way. They demanded that he be punished in a material way.
Some here think that is just hunky dory okay. Some of us don't.
Interesting, you focus all your hatred and blame on GLAAD, yet it was a very powerful corporate executive who made the decision.
A decision the corporate executive would never have made had it not been the pressure applied by GLAAD.
The topic is tolerance. GLAAD wants tolerance for its members--tolerance that allows gays and lesbians be who and what they are and not be punished for that. It was GLAAD who would not extend the same tolerance to Phil Robertson and allow Robertson to be who and what he is.
[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] - uhm, ok, thanks. So, that means I can continue being straight, right? Cuz being gay does not interest me. I'm just a vagina lovin kind of guy. Perhaps you meant another member. Care to revise that posting?
Perhaps if you read the post I was responding to, you'll get what I responding to. I took Derideo as saying you were gay, with nothing other than that to work off of I responded in due kind. I missed that very last point "are you intolerant of him as you are gays?" Now that I know, I will rescind any insinuations that were made in that particular part of my post.
Ah, I am seeing the context now. Not so sure why Derideo Te used me as an example. Must be some confusion. I am a single father, that is true. Divorced since 2010. But being divorced doesn't make one gay, it just makes one divorced. Plus, he never wrote that I was gay, he wrote something to the effect that I am not in a heterosexual marriage, which is correct, for I am not in a marriage at all, and after the last one, probably won't do it again. I can see that his wording must have been a little strange for you but I am sure he did not mean that in any way to confuse, either you or me.
And frankly, I wouldn't care if I were gay. But I'm not. In fact, right now I'm a little depressed that I had to cancel a date with a woman on Friday because extra work fell into my lap and I couldn't pass it up. Kind of a bummer. She is a terrific person and beautiful to boot. Sigh.
