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.
He [Robertson] has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.
To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.
Okay, we've established that Foxfyre, and now TemplarKormac - and probably some others - believe that what GLAAD did should be a crime (yes, newcomers, as outrageous as that sounds, it's true)
But I'll bet a dollar they won't say that this (virtually the same thing) should be a crime:
Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page
'Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page for Phil Robertson Gets over 1M Likes
"virtually" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
He most certainly does NOT!PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions.
Good Lord!
He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.
He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.
Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.
Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.
To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.
He most certainly does NOT!PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions.
Good Lord!
He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.
He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.
Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.
Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.
To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.
Might as well be reading 'WAR AND PEACE' aloud in their mind...You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
Gay CNN Anchor Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star - Video
It is a free speech issue.
But when he quotes the bible as his guide for his feelings about gays, he introduces the teachings, right? He's the one citing the bible as his spiritaul guide to make him think the way he thinks. I didn't bring it up. What I did bring up is that there are parts of the same text that are ignored out of convenience sake Of course, as I have demonstrated, part-time Christians seem to be the norm and in terms of politics, it's only that part of the bible that is in line with GOP supersition that seems to be harped upon. That you think this is just fine...well, that's between you and whom you worship I suppose.
However, you can't cite part of the work and think it elevates your stance/reinforces your positition when you ignore parts of the rest of the work as being totally out of step with 2013/2014 civilized society. Otherwise, those who oppose his viewpoints, can do the same thing, right?
One thing you missed:
How does his quoting the Bible affect you? How does doing such imply action or ill will? Hmm? "Civilized" is a relative term to you. "Civilized" only happens to be those that hold the same opinion as yours. Actually, the word you're looking for is "narcissism." Even the homosexuals who watch the show disagree, they don't care about what Phil Robertson thinks, they care about the show!
Why can't you do that, candycorn?
Okay, we've established that Foxfyre, and now TemplarKormac - and probably some others - believe that what GLAAD did should be a crime (yes, newcomers, as outrageous as that sounds, it's true)
But I'll bet a dollar they won't say that this (virtually the same thing) should be a crime:
Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page
'Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page for Phil Robertson Gets over 1M Likes
"virtually" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Could you not do that? Please?
Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?
Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -
something you deem criminal.
He most certainly does NOT!
Good Lord!
He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.
He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.
Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.
Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.
To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.
1) Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?
2) Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -
3) something you deem criminal.
He [Robertson] has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.
To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.
That is true, and his cable network is going to regret their decision to put him on hiatus until it has all blown over. Nothing will ever be the same, if and when, he returns for new episodes. The internal damage has been done. The Robertson's are a proud family.
He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.
Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.
Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.
To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.
1) Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?
2) Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -
3) something you deem criminal.
1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.
2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."
3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?
He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.
Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.
Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.
To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.
1) Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?
2) Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -
3) something you deem criminal.
1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.
2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."
3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?
1) Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?
2) Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -
3) something you deem criminal.
1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.
2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."
3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?
Whether she did nor not, threatening violence is criminal and is counter to our standards as a society.
1) Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?
2) Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -
3) something you deem criminal.
1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.
2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."
3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?
2M+ Likes on Facebook...guess when most of them happened?
Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.
Congrats this means nothing
So does this^
He most certainly does NOT!
Good Lord!
He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.
He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.
Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.
Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.
To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.
Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?
Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -
something you deem criminal.
1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.
2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."
3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?
Whether she did nor not, threatening violence is criminal and is counter to our standards as a society.
Indeed. But nobody ever said or implied anything of the sort.
Naturally. he's a humble man.1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.
2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."
3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?
2M+ Likes on Facebook...guess when most of them happened?
Right after the suspension I believe. Phil was quiet the entire time.
Whether she did nor not, threatening violence is criminal and is counter to our standards as a society.
Indeed. But nobody ever said or implied anything of the sort.
So, it was nycarbineer's hyperbole?
Congrats this means nothing
So does this^
By your use of the words "so does" it indicates that my words mean nothing either except Fox received thanks for saying nothing.
I was merely pointing out that if you dont accept intolerance then she believes that is intolerance. Basically there is no right or wrong because if you take a side you yourself are showing a negative trait which is intolerance.
So you cant judge, you cant express disagreement...basically its a PC mexican standoff and its bullshit.
Agree?
Indeed. But nobody ever said or implied anything of the sort.
So, it was nycarbineer's hyperbole?
Yep. You got it my friend. Carbine is blowing Fox's words completely out of proportion, trying to smear her and her character in the process. Such is an act of cowardice. Unconscionable.
