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.
One last time, the next person that goes railing against conservatives or liberals, I'm going to SCREAM. This thread is not about that.
It is not a matter of being gay
Or being Christian
Or being partisan
It is not about whether something is constitutional or legal
It is not about free speech
It is not about business decisions
It is not about who else does it or who started it or who did it first
This is a matter of tolerance. The right to be who or what we are without fear of some angry group or mob or organization demanding that we be physically or materially harmed.
Who among us will say that gay and lesbian people or any other demongraphic should not enjoy the right to be who and what they are without fear that an angry group or mob or organization will demand that they be physically or materially harmed?
And who among us will say that Phil Robertson or any other Christian or any other person should not enjoy the right to be who and what they are without fear of some angry group or mob or organization demand that they be physically or materially harmed?
Could we please focus on those two questions?
Do you realize that if your principles were actually in place as law and/or policy,
MSNBC would have had to allow Martin Bashir to keep his job, if he so chose?
Is it not my right? Or is it not my right simply because I hit the nail on the head?
You see, my sword doesn't cut one way. Not all liberals take the time to explain anything to me, except for how much they hate my guts and want to string them up like Christmas lights because I disagree with them. I make examples of them if they do. Pogo for example is a liberal, so is Mertex and Noomi, they take the time to respectfully disagree with me. None of them call me names and get melodramatic like some others do. Other liberals make spectacles of themselves, spew self righteous invective and endless pejoratives in my direction instead of making an actual argument. That's a fact of life you will have to accept, Stat. I do the same to conservatives on this board, so don't go prejudging me for whom I associate, okay? (I remember you telling me that a day or so ago)
Did I ever say that is is not your right?
Answer: NO.
All I did was to take your statement and reformulate it from the other side. Why the umbrage? If it was so innocent when you formulated it, isn't my formulation just as innocent? Hmmm???
And just to be clear, I have never called you a name, or?
Oh and:
Other Conservative make spectacles of themselves, spew self righteous invective and endless pejoratives in my direction instead of making an actual argument. That's a fact of life you will have to accept, TK.
I hope the point is getting across.
The point is that you keep making generalizations and then it itches when I remind you of those generalizations.
the key point here is that I have done absolutely none of these things to you. Food for thought for you.
You're the one resorting to generalizations. Of both Christians and Conservatives. I'm reminding you the opposite is true. It itches when the last vestiges of your liberal world are thrown to the wind like chaff.
I have a right to "go there" if I please. So yes, you were dictating to me what my rights were.
you can CALL him whatever you feel like is appropriate - but you do not have the right, unless you are an intolerant bigot, to engage in persecuting the guy who just called you a word.
Big fucking deal. a word
You weren't very kind to the Tea Party in that moment. Tsk, tsk.
That is going to leave a mark. Ouch.
link.
to the examples where Tea Party exemplifies the bolded.
A say-so is not an argument.
Show how I compared FF to Hitler. Do it in detail, mr. debater.
Excuse me, but haven't you been "saying so" all day?
"You pretend that words alone are harmless. Hitler was little more than a big talker before he eventually came to power and could 'act out' his words."
When you referred to Hitler as a "big talker" you meant Fox also. You accused her of being a big talker and of being a fraud. Hitler was inherently evil and megalomaniacal
You've crossed two lines today:
One, you've attacked a good woman today, who has not responded in kind to your childishness.
Two, you've compared her to a mass murderer, you've dubbed her "evil" and have been in no uncertain terms unapologetic and unremorseful. You don't like others calling you a liar, but you don't mind calling others liars. You don't like to have your image tarnished by anyone, yet you take to slandering others.
"Humility for thee, but not for me" in other words.
Actually what Hitler was doing to the Jews was not widely publicized at all. Plus it was not only Jews - there were other groups of people which just started to disappear.
It is one of the myths of the uneducated left that everybody in Germany knew what was happening and what was going on.
Totalitarian societies are very secretive, especially on their crimes.
People learn, but not from the open sources. The press in such societies does not discuss the problems but hails the achievements.
Much like our lame stream media with obama
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.
To the bolded - I didn't say it did. I said I do not want to be friends with someone who agrees with the things Phil said.
Of course it goes without saying that TK had been in a manic episode for many hours by that point, and undiagnosed, untreated people have a tendency to trigger me.
You are not qualified to diagnose anything.
Personally, I took Phil's comment to be more bizarre (in keeping with his entire life) than hateful or intolerant. The entire Robinson schtick is based on the premise of it's ok to be different. A&E has a right to be concerned about its advertising base, but if I were to bet, I'd bet this was more a flap (hah) that will vanish into thin air.
However, as to the OP, I'd merely note (with respect) that anyone who acts with intolerance towards another's presonal lifestyle has no reason to expect any tolerance from those whom he/she has intentionally offended? Jesus opined on turning the other cheek, but he also kicked out the money lenders from the Temple because he was offended.
That is not why Jesus threw the money changers, not lenders, out of the temple. The money changers had turned the temple into a commercial marketplace. They were selling sacrificial animals, and had turned the temple into a marketplace. He did not throw them out because he was 'offended.' He threw them out because they were doing wrong.
Once again asking that we keep this civil and stop the sniping at each other and personal insults. I know it is difficult not to respond to an insulting troll, but try guys. Please try. They look a lot worse with their childishness if we just ignore them. If we respond in kind, they look justified in their sniping. And the train has to be dragged back onto the tracks.
I agree. I love it when they show themselves for what they are:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ine-s-cryfest-over-those-meanie-liberals.html
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?
Never said it did. I think he had the right to say (and has the right still) whatever comes into his mind. And GLAAD has the right to organize any sort of response they deem appropriate outside of doing physical harm to him or anyone else.
You see sonny, I'm commenting on a thread written by a dingbat who thinks GLAAD had no such standing only because she agrees with what this guy from DD said. Now that there have been moves to counter-boycott, you'll notice Foxy (TTBOMK anyway) has not lambasted those who did the same thing GLAAD did.
As for "homosexuals who watch the show"...oh yeah as if you talked to everyone of them. When their lifestyle is compared to Beastiality, I would think that there were more than just a few who thought otherwise. Dunno for sure but the law of big numbers seems to indicate that there would be some. Your generalization is an earmark of your lazy research and weak mind.
I would consider someone taking my livelihood to be physical harm. I guess your body sustains itself without food. Most of the rest of us have to eat to stay physically alive.
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.
A huge amount of untrue bullshit in that one, which is not all too surprising, considering the vile source.
The boldeds are a clue.
You just accused Progressives of wanting to be murderers. That is not true.
If a non-christian asks about a passage from the Christian Bible or challenges an interpretation, that is "not" throwing the bible in Christians' faces. That is called adult discussion. Maybe one day, when you finally emotionally become an adult, you will understand this.
So, since you are saying that boycotts because you don't agree with someone is unconscionable, I assume that you want to condemn a great number of Christian pastors who have called for the boycotting of companies that are gay friendly in their company policies. How many "Christians" called for boycotts of Starbucks Coffee? Are you also condeming this, or is your faux outrage only aimed at non-christians.
With all that work you do broadbrushing other people, I bet your hands get really tired.
Wow. For a 'newbie' you sure do seem to hold a longstanding opinion of me. I bet you get really tired of switching proxy servers.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott apparently never should've happened because its wrong to be intolerant of intolerance
welcome to crazy land
It's a very short trip from outlawing a worker's right to strike since it deprives the owner of income.
FAL!
Collective bargaining is a long standing and accepted practice. Both the employer and the employees agree to have the union representing the employees.
I love Ellen.
That is all.
So it goes, for which I am partially to blame, a topic dying from a thousand cuts. I would like to say a eulogy for my friend, the topic. He was a good topic. A substantial topic. The topic had never hurt anyone but its mere presence brought out the stupid in people. This topic, like all topics, eventually brought out comparisons to Hitler. This is of course the death nell of all topics. Emotions , intolerance and arguments about Christianity all lead to the murder of this topic. I too am responsible for being to immature to let silly name calling go unchecked. We are all topic murderers! This topic should have been loved and nurtured by either the government or the parents (depending on rather your republican or democrat). Goodbye topic, you will be in my thoughts... and yes... in my heart. Let us bow our heads and pray.
R.I.P
And just once I wish NYcarboneer and/or CandyCorn was smart enough or tolerant enough to be honest about what I have said. Now pay attention here folks. I'm going to use them to teach a principle.
I can easily call either or both dishonest when he misrepresents what I say. It is doing a BAD ACT when he deliberately attributes something to me that is not accurate. And if it got to be a problem for me, or if he was continually derailing the thread, I would be fully justified in doing whatever I could to have him removed from the thread or the forum or otherwise 'punished' for his bad acts. There is no reason I should ever have to tolerate being deliberately misquoted or misrepresented as to what I have said or done or be subjected to having my rights violated due to somebody's immaturity or just plain meanness.
BUT. . .he is fully within his right to tell me that my opinion sucks, that I have it all wrong, that I am stupid, ignorant, partisan or whatever. That is his opinion. He has been invited to express his opinion on this thread and that would be expressing his opinion. I might think he is a total jerk and/or partisan hack and think he is wrong in everything he says, but I am tolerant if I allow him to be who and what he is without neg repping or trying to persuade somebody in authority to remove him.
Do you have all the conservatives in this thread on ignore?
I have asked you several times about my own family, and why you would expect me to tolerate intolerance.
On another note, you specifically said that there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. When I pointed out One Million Moms, you did not acknowledge that yes, 'they do it too,' which would be the logical debate thing to do when your statement has been disproven.
Candycorn and NYCarbineer have behaved no more badly than anybody on the right in this thread - so why are they being held up as negatives.
No BdBoop, I did not say there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. I said I did not KNOW of any conservative group doing what GLAAD did in the Phil Robertson bruhaha and I asked for any who knew of such examples to please link to them. I did not see a post about your family or about One Million Moms--I have skipped over lot of posts doing the occasional food fight outbreaks here and have tried not to respond to off topic posts. I regret and apologize if I have inadvertently slighted a pertinent post.
One Millions Moms is an advocacy group promoting decency in the media yes. I am unware that they have targeted any individual and attempted to destroy him. Do you know of such a case?
CandyCorn and NYCarbineer and one or two others were referenced since they targeted me and misrepresented and mischaracterized what I have posted here and accused me of saying things I did not say. And that is the ONLY reason they were targeted for specific criticism from me. I did not say they have behaved any worse than anybody else. If any conservative had misrepresented or mischaracterized my comments as they did, they would also have been targeted for similar rebuttal. And if you think I have not urged conservatives to get back on topic as I have urged those two, you need to get your eyes checked.
Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.
And frankly, I'm pretty discouraged that we apparently have so few members at USMB with the maturity to be civil and focused on such a topic and who have the ability to discuss it without making it partisan and attacking each other.
I understand what happened. You called them out by name. And even though you saw conservatives doing the exact same thing (to we on the 'other side'), you did not specifically call any of them on it.
So it goes, for which I am partially to blame, a topic dying from a thousand cuts. I would like to say a eulogy for my friend, the topic. He was a good topic. A substantial topic. The topic had never hurt anyone but its mere presence brought out the stupid in people. This topic, like all topics, eventually brought out comparisons to Hitler. This is of course the death nell of all topics. Hypocrisy , intolerance and arguments about Christianity all lead to the murder of this topic. I too am responsible for being to immature to let silly name calling go unchecked. We are all topic murderers! This topic should have been loved and nurtured by either the government or the parents (depending on rather your republican or democrat). Goodbye topic, you will be in my thoughts... and yes... in my heart. Let us bow our heads and pray.
R.I.P
