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.
She described herself. Didn't you even read her post:
"To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil."
GLAAD expressed an opinion. FF earlier in this thread said GLAAD's actions should be criminalized. That would certainly qualify as seeking to punish somebody.
Therefore, by her own measuring stick and hers alone, FF is pure evil.
...so now you can be the weasel you are and deny that FF called for such criminalization, to try to force me to look it up and remind you,
and then you can run off, or else come up with some new weasel move.
Carbine? What with all the name calling all of a sudden? Must I humble you?
Opinion- adj. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Action - adj. Organized activity to accomplish an objective.
There is a huge difference between opinion and action. One isn't an action, but a belief. The other is acting on a belief. You can have your beliefs, but the actions arising from it may not be the least bit desirable to some.
The fact that you begrudge her the right to opine on her feelings of what GLAAD did is intolerant in and of itself. You are a hypocrite, carbine. I have never seen such a graceful reaffirmation of a point in my experiences in debating. You lost the moment you chose to call her names and distort her words. You lost the moment you made the implication that she was "evil" for having an opinion you disagreed with.
You were played like a fiddle, my friend.
Despite it being irrelevant whether someone expressed an opinion or took an action,
GLAAD's only action was to express their opinions to A & E.
The author of this thread wants to criminalize that. Do you agree with her?
You said that they were HIS words. They were not, as he was reading from the Bible. He then either went on to talk about what he believes they meant or it was a reading that his Pastor asked him to do to create the foundation for the Pastor's sermon. I have no idea, and neither do you. A reasonable person would recognize that and let it drop, not repeat over and over that "they were his own words" to the point where he becomes so discredited that people start to ignore him.
Only the 1st of the 5 quotes in that link are from the bible. Here are the other 4;
Given those 4 rants it isn't hard to make the leap to PR embracing the canards in this one;
"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." -- Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.
'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com
*Yawn* the first two aren't intolerant and the last two would be "tongue in cheek" if you humorless drones weren't so desperate to find something to hang him on. Move along, I can't take you seriously.
Too bad TK and Hunarcy aren't striving for the example Foxy is setting. Whole lotta intolerance in this thread, for sure.
And for the record, you ended our friendship because of certain views I had on homosexuality. And you want to lecture me on tolerance? I don't think so, miss.
So you are intolerant of my decision?
My sister is a lesbian, my niece-in-law is biracial. I asked you if you agreed with the things Phil said, and you said yes.
There is nothing left to say after that.
Has he recanted his preaching of hatred of homosexuals from 2010?
Carbine? What with all the name calling all of a sudden? Must I humble you?
Opinion- adj. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Action - adj. Organized activity to accomplish an objective.
There is a huge difference between opinion and action. One isn't an action, but a belief. The other is acting on a belief. You can have your beliefs, but the actions arising from it may not be the least bit desirable to some.
The fact that you begrudge her the right to opine on her feelings of what GLAAD did is intolerant in and of itself. You are a hypocrite, carbine. I have never seen such a graceful reaffirmation of a point in my experiences in debating. You lost the moment you chose to call her names and distort her words. You lost the moment you made the implication that she was "evil" for having an opinion you disagreed with.
You were played like a fiddle, my friend.
Despite it being irrelevant whether someone expressed an opinion or took an action,
GLAAD's only action was to express their opinions to A & E.
The author of this thread wants to criminalize that. Do you agree with her?
Uh huh, GLAAD has enough sway that just by threatening A&E they got them to react. In fear, politically motivated fear. They called for them to respond to the remarks with appropriate action... 'called.' Yeah, right.
I agree with Fox, yes I do. I agree with Fox and not with you.
Capische?
Where's your objection to all of the people who called for Martin Bashir to lose his job?
Can you link us to that?
Can you link us to anywhere that I insisted that Bashir had a free speech right that should make it unconstitutional for him to be forced to resign? Can you link to anywhere I called for it to be made illegal for groups to criticize Bashir and make 'demands' to MSNBC to fire him?
1) I never called for him to be fired. In fact, I had very little to say about the subject. It was MSNBC's right to fire him if indeed he was fired. Just as you and everyone else here agrees that it was A&E prerogative to suspend Phil Robertson.
2) However, Bashir's opinion was exceptionally grotesque and misogynistic, to which not even you objected to. Yeah that's right, I never heard you objecting to him referring to a woman in such a way, being the man that he is. Such is an example of a selective view of misogyny. To whether he had a free speech right to say such is inconsequential.
3) Phil Robertson's comments to GQ, not his sermons are in question here. Those comments did not call for any action to be taken against homosexuals, as opposed to Bashir's in regards to Sarah Palin.
Stop putting words into peoples mouths, yet again, carbine.
lol, PR's sermon statements are not in question? So you wish to eliminate them from consideration?
So can we also pretend that Martin Bashir never said what he said about Palin?
Fair enough?
Tongue in cheek. lol, exactly as I predicted.
Despite it being irrelevant whether someone expressed an opinion or took an action,
GLAAD's only action was to express their opinions to A & E.
The author of this thread wants to criminalize that. Do you agree with her?
Uh huh, GLAAD has enough sway that just by threatening A&E they got them to react. In fear, politically motivated fear. They called for them to respond to the remarks with appropriate action... 'called.' Yeah, right.
I agree with Fox, yes I do. I agree with Fox and not with you.
Capische?
And what did they threaten them with?
And now I can you to the list of conservatives who want to criminalize liberals expressing their opinions to corporations.
Priceless. This thread is working out much better than I ever thought it would. lol, no wonder I'm addicted to it.
How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:
"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com
As you see, FF doesn't want to debate the points she can't win.
You're right. I'm not going to debate an off topic subject. Not because "I can't win" but because those subjects don't belong on this thread.
And for the record, you ended our friendship because of certain views I had on homosexuality. And you want to lecture me on tolerance? I don't think so, miss.
So you are intolerant of my decision?
My sister is a lesbian, my niece-in-law is biracial. I asked you if you agreed with the things Phil said, and you said yes.
There is nothing left to say after that.
How does someone else's opinion on this issue affect your relationship with your circle of friends and family? If it affects that at all, then you need to reexamine your relationships. Personally, I think gay people should definitely marry one another. The old gay lifestyle was doing nothing but spreading disease. The fact that they caught on to this and have done something to change it is admirable. And second, gays marrying one another saves some other person the heartbreak of learning that their spouse is on the down low. To marry someone of the opposite sex when you know you are gay is unconscionable. But that is what many did before the 80s.
Does all of what I said above mean that I think being gay is righteous and holy? No, not at all. And I have as much right to say that as they have to do their thing. It is also unconscionable for a person or persons to take away the livelihood of someone who does not share the popular beliefs of the day.
People on this forum who are not Christians have no problem throwing the Bible up to the Christians. Well, here's a flash: Jesus did not conform to the PC thinking of His day. And He was clearly not 'tolerated.' So what has changed since then? Apparently nothing. If leftists can't legally take Robertson's life, then they will take his livelihood. But we all know, you all would kill him if you could.
Now, it should be noted that GLAAD is whining about the 'backlash' and angry emails and letters. So sad. Too bad. They claim to believe in the 'live and let live' philosophy. They should have stuck with it. I don't know what A&E or the Robertson family will do. But Cracker Barrel has put all the DD stuff back on the shelves because of the backlash. Money talks and it talks VERY loudly sometimes.
Gays aren't the only people with rights. And nowhere do the laws of our nation state that American citizens are required to approve of them. They don't want 'tolerance.' They want 100% unopposed approval. Well, here's another flash: As long as there are Christians who believe what the Bible has to say on they matter, they will not get it.
Priceless. This thread is working out much better than I ever thought it would. lol, no wonder I'm addicted to it.
Uh huh, GLAAD has enough sway that just by threatening A&E they got them to react. In fear, politically motivated fear. They called for them to respond to the remarks with appropriate action... 'called.' Yeah, right.
I agree with Fox, yes I do. I agree with Fox and not with you.
Capische?
And what did they threaten them with?
And now I can you to the list of conservatives who want to criminalize liberals expressing their opinions to corporations.
Priceless. This thread is working out much better than I ever thought it would. lol, no wonder I'm addicted to it.
First come statements (calls for action) then come lawsuits. Yeah, there was a threat implied, not stated.
A statement of pure and utter desperation. An act of self conflation. How cute.
I love how you twisted Fox's words to mean what you wanted them to mean. You had no argument, just a desire to launch a smear campaign, which is absent any cogent facts pertaining to the OP.
I proved it to be absolutely false. That's why you're running away from it.
Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.
Tongue in cheek. lol, exactly as I predicted.
You predicted I'd point out you're a humorless drone who was busy trying to make things that were obviously said in jest seem serious? Maybe you are a little like Kreskin.
1) I never called for him to be fired. In fact, I had very little to say about the subject. It was MSNBC's right to fire him if indeed he was fired. Just as you and everyone else here agrees that it was A&E prerogative to suspend Phil Robertson.
2) However, Bashir's opinion was exceptionally grotesque and misogynistic, to which not even you objected to. Yeah that's right, I never heard you objecting to him referring to a woman in such a way, being the man that he is. Such is an example of a selective view of misogyny. To whether he had a free speech right to say such is inconsequential.
3) Phil Robertson's comments to GQ, not his sermons are in question here. Those comments did not call for any action to be taken against homosexuals, as opposed to Bashir's in regards to Sarah Palin.
Stop putting words into peoples mouths, yet again, carbine.
lol, PR's sermon statements are not in question? So you wish to eliminate them from consideration?
So can we also pretend that Martin Bashir never said what he said about Palin?
Fair enough?
Sorry, Martin Bashir is you moving the goalposts. You are 'pretending' that one has to do with the other. PR's sermon is neither here nor there as this OP goes. The entirety of the audience, as well as A&E knew what they were getting. Just imagine to my surprise who they all sided with. Not A&E, not GLAAD, not you, but with Phil Robertson.
Too bad TK and Hunarcy aren't striving for the example Foxy is setting. Whole lotta intolerance in this thread, for sure.
And for the record, you ended our friendship because of certain views I had on homosexuality. And you want to lecture me on tolerance? I don't think so, miss.
So you are intolerant of my decision?
My sister is a lesbian, my niece-in-law is biracial. I asked you if you agreed with the things Phil said, and you said yes.
There is nothing left to say after that.
PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions. Whether he's right or wrong shouldn't be debated, but whether losing his job from making a statement the people who hired him already knew he would make.
Martin Bashir has been brought up. Did he have the right to say what he did? Of course. Should MSNBC have fired him? I don't believe so. His actions were, however, far different in comparison. In a news broadcast, which should be used to inform the public of facts, he called for someone to defecate in her mouth. Attacking someone and their family in a public broadcast should have some repercussions; while being invited to an interview and asked a personal question should be treated as an interview.
Apples and oranges.
And for the record, you ended our friendship because of certain views I had on homosexuality. And you want to lecture me on tolerance? I don't think so, miss.
So you are intolerant of my decision?
My sister is a lesbian, my niece-in-law is biracial. I asked you if you agreed with the things Phil said, and you said yes.
There is nothing left to say after that.
How does someone else's opinion on this issue affect your relationship with your circle of friends and family? If it affects that at all, then you need to reexamine your relationships. Personally, I think gay people should definitely marry one another. The old gay lifestyle was doing nothing but spreading disease. The fact that they caught on to this and have done something to change it is admirable. And second, gays marrying one another saves some other person the heartbreak of learning that their spouse is on the down low. To marry someone of the opposite sex when you know you are gay is unconscionable. But that is what many did before the 80s.
Does all of what I said above mean that I think being gay is righteous and holy? No, not at all. And I have as much right to say that as they have to do their thing. It is also unconscionable for a person or persons to take away the livelihood of someone who does not share the popular beliefs of the day.
People on this forum who are not Christians have no problem throwing the Bible up to the Christians. Well, here's a flash: Jesus did not conform to the PC thinking of His day. And He was clearly not 'tolerated.' So what has changed since then? Apparently nothing. If leftists can't legally take Robertson's life, then they will take his livelihood. But we all know, you all would kill him if you could.
Now, it should be noted that GLAAD is whining about the 'backlash' and angry emails and letters. So sad. Too bad. They claim to believe in the 'live and let live' philosophy. They should have stuck with it. I don't know what A&E or the Robertson family will do. But Cracker Barrel has put all the DD stuff back on the shelves because of the backlash. Money talks and it talks VERY loudly sometimes.
Gays aren't the only people with rights. And nowhere do the laws of our nation state that American citizens are required to approve of them. They don't want 'tolerance.' They want 100% unopposed approval. Well, here's another flash: As long as there are Christians who believe what the Bible has to say on they matter, they will not get it.
