In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[Vox]

Hardly.

Romans I:26 - 32 says this:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Robertson was not reading from a Bible, no other version btw either.

If you acknowledge you were wrong and apologize to me for your assholedness, I'll tell you why it matter.

You are correct, I was mistaken, he was paraphrasing Romans I:26 - 32. As I acknowledge in a following post, I didn't know for sure what he was doing and neither did you. It turns out that it was a speech given at a "Wild Game Supper" at Berean Bible Church in Pennsylvania in Feb. 2010. He sprinkled in religious content, hunting stories and the story of his life into the speech.

As far as apologizing to you, I have nothing to apologize for as you have spent two days behaving as if you're the MR wing of the far Left.

Apologize for calling me a liar without bothering to take 1 minute to confirm whether or not your accusation had any merit.
btw, YOU cited the verse in Romans as proof I was lying, which must mean you never even read it.

But that aside, do you know the significance of why the verse was sampled, if you will, as opposed to simply being quoted by Phil Robertson, or possibly by whoever composed what he actually said?

Because Phil's rendition distorts the passage into a direct and specific attack on homosexuals, and that is in no way what those verses really are.

That implies intent. Intent to specifically disparage homosexuals.

You ARE a liar.

You had no idea he was paraphrasing ( which is the same as quoting, but in own words) until MeBelle and me schooled you and provided exact name and place and how to find the words on the internet - then you became all suddenly "educated".
the education was provided to you on page 13 and repeated on 14-15 of this thread. Until THEN you have had not a slightest idea it was a paraphrased quote from the Bible.

and the reason you had no idea is simple - you, personally, are a typical low information leftist voter and you based your knowledge on the LA times and Hufpost articles where the words of PR were given as his OWN. Being who you are you did not check the information YOURSELF because you believe every word of the lies those masters are telling you

So yes, you are a LIAR and a shameless one to demand an apology for calling you so when it is well deserved.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are correct, I was mistaken, he was paraphrasing Romans I:26 - 32. As I acknowledge in a following post, I didn't know for sure what he was doing and neither did you. It turns out that it was a speech given at a "Wild Game Supper" at Berean Bible Church in Pennsylvania in Feb. 2010. He sprinkled in religious content, hunting stories and the story of his life into the speech.

As far as apologizing to you, I have nothing to apologize for as you have spent two days behaving as if you're the MR wing of the far Left.

Apologize for calling me a liar without bothering to take 1 minute to confirm whether or not your accusation had any merit.
btw, YOU cited the verse in Romans as proof I was lying, which must mean you never even read it.

But that aside, do you know the significance of why the verse was sampled, if you will, as opposed to simply being quoted by Phil Robertson, or possibly by whoever composed what he actually said?

Because Phil's rendition distorts the passage into a direct and specific attack on homosexuals, and that is in no way what those verses really are.

That implies intent. Intent to specifically disparage homosexuals.

You ARE a liar.

You had no idea he was paraphrasing ( which is the same as quoting, but in own words) until MeBelle and me schooled you and provided exact name and place and how to find the words on the internet - then you became all suddenly "educated".

So yes, you a LIAR and a shameless one.

Why are you assuming I know nothing about the Bible? I happen to have debated before around the verses cited. And a good many more in the Bible.

You are, btw, calling me a liar for posting something that is true.

If he was 'paraphrasing' as you claim, then he was doing this:

Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words

Link: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/619/

Hmmm...so if paraphrasing is to write it in your own words,

and I described the quote as Robertson's own words,

who's lying again??? lolol



BUT, no, he was not 'paraphrasing' because his OWN WORDS altered the meaning of the original text. I described that above.

Most importantly, in addition to all above, they are his own words because he said them, and believes them, and therefore he owns them.

What's amazing is that as much as the quote has been posted, I don't recall seeing any rightwinger here simply denounce the content of the quote.

 

[Dot Com]

FoxFyre being non-partisan is like a duck being able to ride a bicycle. Just sayin...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives like Foxfyre are simply practicing the new conservative political correctness;

they are trying to expand the right to be bigoted into the right not to be criticized for being bigoted.

And then, just a few posts later:

I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined.

You can't make this shit up.

This place is a HOOT.

.

One has nothing to do with the other. This thread would never have been about both liberal AND conservative intolerance had I not made it so.

 

[Vox]

Apologize for calling me a liar without bothering to take 1 minute to confirm whether or not your accusation had any merit.
btw, YOU cited the verse in Romans as proof I was lying, which must mean you never even read it.

But that aside, do you know the significance of why the verse was sampled, if you will, as opposed to simply being quoted by Phil Robertson, or possibly by whoever composed what he actually said?

Because Phil's rendition distorts the passage into a direct and specific attack on homosexuals, and that is in no way what those verses really are.

That implies intent. Intent to specifically disparage homosexuals.

You ARE a liar.

You had no idea he was paraphrasing ( which is the same as quoting, but in own words) until MeBelle and me schooled you and provided exact name and place and how to find the words on the internet - then you became all suddenly "educated".

So yes, you a LIAR and a shameless one.

Why are you assuming I know nothing about the Bible? I happen to have debated before around the verses cited. And a good many more in the Bible.

You are, btw, calling me a liar for posting something that is true.

If he was 'paraphrasing' as you claim, then he was doing this:

Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words

Link: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/619/

Hmmm...so if paraphrasing is to write it in your own words,

and I described the quote as Robertson's own words,

who's lying again??? lolol



BUT, no, he was not 'paraphrasing' because his OWN WORDS altered the meaning of the original text. I described that above.

Most importantly, in addition to all above, they are his own words because he said them, and believes them, and therefore he owns them.

What's amazing is that as much as the quote has been posted, I don't recall seeing any rightwinger here simply denounce the content of the quote.

you are a LIAR.

you had no idea the words are from the Bible ALTOGETHER until MeBelle and me schooled you on the subject - on the page 13, 14 and 15.

Keep believing every word you leftist media throw on you without checking - and you will come as an ignorant liar even more.


you can cut my quote as much as you want - because you a LIAR, it still doesn't change the reality that you KNOW you lost the argument, don't you?

You had no idea he was paraphrasing ( which is the same as quoting, but in own words) until MeBelle and me schooled you and provided exact name and place and how to find the words on the internet - then you became all suddenly "educated".
the education was provided to you on page 13 and repeated on 14-15 of this thread. Until THEN you have had not a slightest idea it was a paraphrased quote from the Bible.

and the reason you had no idea is simple - you, personally, are a typical low information leftist voter and you based your knowledge on the LA times and Hufpost articles where the words of PR were given as his OWN. Being who you are you did not check the information YOURSELF because you believe every word of the lies those masters are telling you

 

[NYcarbineer]

FoxFyre being non-partisan is like a duck being able to ride a bicycle. Just sayin...

The first line of this thread by FF is this:

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy.

BUT,

as soon as I started posting examples comparable to the above, I got attacked for trying to change the subject!

lol, rightwingers never disappoint.

 

[The T]

FoxFyre being non-partisan is like a duck being able to ride a bicycle. Just sayin...

Quite Frankly? YOU need to go back and re-read the original OP...

Here...I will help you:

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8332492-post1.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

You ARE a liar.

You had no idea he was paraphrasing ( which is the same as quoting, but in own words) until MeBelle and me schooled you and provided exact name and place and how to find the words on the internet - then you became all suddenly "educated".

So yes, you a LIAR and a shameless one.

Why are you assuming I know nothing about the Bible? I happen to have debated before around the verses cited. And a good many more in the Bible.

You are, btw, calling me a liar for posting something that is true.

If he was 'paraphrasing' as you claim, then he was doing this:

Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words

Link: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/619/

Hmmm...so if paraphrasing is to write it in your own words,

and I described the quote as Robertson's own words,

who's lying again??? lolol



BUT, no, he was not 'paraphrasing' because his OWN WORDS altered the meaning of the original text. I described that above.

Most importantly, in addition to all above, they are his own words because he said them, and believes them, and therefore he owns them.

What's amazing is that as much as the quote has been posted, I don't recall seeing any rightwinger here simply denounce the content of the quote.

you are a LIAR.

you had no idea the words are from the Bible ALTOGETHER until MeBelle and me schooled you on the subject - on the page 13, 14 and 15.

Keep believing every word you leftist media throw on you without checking - and you will come as an ignorant liar even more.


you can cut my quote as much as you want - because you a LIAR, it still doesn't change the reality that you KNOW you lost the argument, don't you?

You had no idea he was paraphrasing ( which is the same as quoting, but in own words) until MeBelle and me schooled you and provided exact name and place and how to find the words on the internet - then you became all suddenly "educated".
the education was provided to you on page 13 and repeated on 14-15 of this thread. Until THEN you have had not a slightest idea it was a paraphrased quote from the Bible.

and the reason you had no idea is simple - you, personally, are a typical low information leftist voter and you based your knowledge on the LA times and Hufpost articles where the words of PR were given as his OWN. Being who you are you did not check the information YOURSELF because you believe every word of the lies those masters are telling you

Did Robertson say it? Was it in his own words? Yes or no. Yes or no.

btw, why hunarcy acknowledge I was right and he was wrong, which means therefore you were wrong?

Are you calling him a liar too?

 

[Vox]

Why are you assuming I know nothing about the Bible? I happen to have debated before around the verses cited. And a good many more in the Bible.

You are, btw, calling me a liar for posting something that is true.

If he was 'paraphrasing' as you claim, then he was doing this:

Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words

Link: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/619/

Hmmm...so if paraphrasing is to write it in your own words,

and I described the quote as Robertson's own words,

who's lying again??? lolol



BUT, no, he was not 'paraphrasing' because his OWN WORDS altered the meaning of the original text. I described that above.

Most importantly, in addition to all above, they are his own words because he said them, and believes them, and therefore he owns them.

What's amazing is that as much as the quote has been posted, I don't recall seeing any rightwinger here simply denounce the content of the quote.

you are a LIAR.

you had no idea the words are from the Bible ALTOGETHER until MeBelle and me schooled you on the subject - on the page 13, 14 and 15.

Keep believing every word you leftist media throw on you without checking - and you will come as an ignorant liar even more.


you can cut my quote as much as you want - because you a LIAR, it still doesn't change the reality that you KNOW you lost the argument, don't you?

You had no idea he was paraphrasing ( which is the same as quoting, but in own words) until MeBelle and me schooled you and provided exact name and place and how to find the words on the internet - then you became all suddenly "educated".
the education was provided to you on page 13 and repeated on 14-15 of this thread. Until THEN you have had not a slightest idea it was a paraphrased quote from the Bible.

and the reason you had no idea is simple - you, personally, are a typical low information leftist voter and you based your knowledge on the LA times and Hufpost articles where the words of PR were given as his OWN. Being who you are you did not check the information YOURSELF because you believe every word of the lies those masters are telling you

Did Robertson say it? Was it in his own words? Yes or no. Yes or no.

btw, why hunarcy acknowledge I was right and he was wrong, which means therefore you were wrong?

Are you calling him a liar too?

just stop lying. he said it in a sermon.

and you thought those words were HIS OWN words as your leftard masters wanted you to believe.

and that is the problem here - you are a low information uneducated voter who can be brainwashed any way they want even when you look stupid.

so you did.

next time check you leftard "bibles" before believing every word they say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

FoxFyre being non-partisan is like a duck being able to ride a bicycle. Just sayin...

Quite Frankly? YOU need to go back and re-read the original OP...

Here...I will help you:

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8332492-post1.html

But after posting that FF did everything she could to avoid discussing ANY examples of conservative intolerance.

thanks for helping me make my point.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why are you assuming I know nothing about the Bible? I happen to have debated before around the verses cited. And a good many more in the Bible.

You are, btw, calling me a liar for posting something that is true.

If he was 'paraphrasing' as you claim, then he was doing this:

Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words

Link: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/619/

Hmmm...so if paraphrasing is to write it in your own words,

and I described the quote as Robertson's own words,

who's lying again??? lolol



BUT, no, he was not 'paraphrasing' because his OWN WORDS altered the meaning of the original text. I described that above.

Most importantly, in addition to all above, they are his own words because he said them, and believes them, and therefore he owns them.

What's amazing is that as much as the quote has been posted, I don't recall seeing any rightwinger here simply denounce the content of the quote.

you are a LIAR.

you had no idea the words are from the Bible ALTOGETHER until MeBelle and me schooled you on the subject - on the page 13, 14 and 15.

Keep believing every word you leftist media throw on you without checking - and you will come as an ignorant liar even more.


you can cut my quote as much as you want - because you a LIAR, it still doesn't change the reality that you KNOW you lost the argument, don't you?

You had no idea he was paraphrasing ( which is the same as quoting, but in own words) until MeBelle and me schooled you and provided exact name and place and how to find the words on the internet - then you became all suddenly "educated".
the education was provided to you on page 13 and repeated on 14-15 of this thread. Until THEN you have had not a slightest idea it was a paraphrased quote from the Bible.

and the reason you had no idea is simple - you, personally, are a typical low information leftist voter and you based your knowledge on the LA times and Hufpost articles where the words of PR were given as his OWN. Being who you are you did not check the information YOURSELF because you believe every word of the lies those masters are telling you

Did Robertson say it? Was it in his own words? Yes or no. Yes or no.

btw, why hunarcy acknowledge I was right and he was wrong, which means therefore you were wrong?

Are you calling him a liar too?

But to anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the OP, the point is not what he said or how he said it. Again--for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible or how he expressed it.

The point is whether he is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian, or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The point is whether ANYBODY is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The issue here is not whether Phil Robertson, or anybody else, is right or wrong. The issue is whether he should be allowed to be so long as he is not infringing on anybody else's rights.

And yes, I have strongly resisted anybody, left or right, who tried to introduce something different from that particular issue.

The issue is not partisanship.
The issue is not who or what is a Christian.
The issue is not who is worthy of criticism.
The issue is not advocacy groups whether left or right.
The issue is not who has said objectionable things.
The issue is not actions that have a physical or material affect on others.
The issue is not whether somebody else has done it too.
The issue is not whether I or anybody else is partisan.

The issue is whether the ability to say what we believe should be an unalienable right. Should we approve and let it stand unopposed when GLAAD, or ANY other group, left or right, demands that a person be physically or materially punished purely for expressing a belief not shared by the group?

 

[birddog]

The libs just don't get it because they don't want to get it! Their wiring s defective!

 

[NYcarbineer]

you are a LIAR.

you had no idea the words are from the Bible ALTOGETHER until MeBelle and me schooled you on the subject - on the page 13, 14 and 15.

Keep believing every word you leftist media throw on you without checking - and you will come as an ignorant liar even more.


you can cut my quote as much as you want - because you a LIAR, it still doesn't change the reality that you KNOW you lost the argument, don't you?

Did Robertson say it? Was it in his own words? Yes or no. Yes or no.

btw, why hunarcy acknowledge I was right and he was wrong, which means therefore you were wrong?

Are you calling him a liar too?

just stop lying. he said it in a sermon.

and you thought those words were HIS OWN words as your leftard masters wanted you to believe.

and that is the problem here - you are a low information uneducated voter who can be brainwashed any way they want even when you look stupid.

so you did.

next time check you leftard "bibles" before believing every word they say.

I've proven they were his own words, your idiotic denials notwithstanding.

And what's funny, to point out he was giving a sermon you seem to think somehow makes it better for him?

So he was distorting a passage from the Bible to viciously defame homosexuals, and that's what makes it okay?

Praiseworthy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

you are a LIAR.

you had no idea the words are from the Bible ALTOGETHER until MeBelle and me schooled you on the subject - on the page 13, 14 and 15.

Keep believing every word you leftist media throw on you without checking - and you will come as an ignorant liar even more.


you can cut my quote as much as you want - because you a LIAR, it still doesn't change the reality that you KNOW you lost the argument, don't you?

Did Robertson say it? Was it in his own words? Yes or no. Yes or no.

btw, why hunarcy acknowledge I was right and he was wrong, which means therefore you were wrong?

Are you calling him a liar too?

But to anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the OP, the point is not what he said or how he said it. Again--for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible or how he expressed it.

The point is whether he is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian, or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The point is whether ANYBODY is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The issue here is not whether Phil Robertson, or anybody else, is right or wrong. The issue is whether he should be allowed to be so long as he is not infringing on anybody else's rights.

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

Robertson has the right to try to convince people that homosexuals are evil. GLAAD has the same right to try to convince A&E that they should not give a television show to someone who does that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Did Robertson say it? Was it in his own words? Yes or no. Yes or no.

btw, why hunarcy acknowledge I was right and he was wrong, which means therefore you were wrong?

Are you calling him a liar too?

But to anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the OP, the point is not what he said or how he said it. Again--for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible or how he expressed it.

The point is whether he is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian, or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The point is whether ANYBODY is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The issue here is not whether Phil Robertson, or anybody else, is right or wrong. The issue is whether he should be allowed to be so long as he is not infringing on anybody else's rights.

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

Robertson has the right to try to convince people that homosexuals are evil. GLAAD has the same right to try to convince A&E that they should not give a television show to someone who does that.

Okay. So you are on the record that nobody is entitled to their opinion unless it is politically correct. We now live in a society that deems it proper to physically and/or materially punish those who don't think, believe, or speak what somebody else thinks they should be required to do. There is no more liberty in America to be who and what we are in peace unless we are among the well financed and powerful with sufficient clout? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Montrovant]

you are a LIAR.

you had no idea the words are from the Bible ALTOGETHER until MeBelle and me schooled you on the subject - on the page 13, 14 and 15.

Keep believing every word you leftist media throw on you without checking - and you will come as an ignorant liar even more.


you can cut my quote as much as you want - because you a LIAR, it still doesn't change the reality that you KNOW you lost the argument, don't you?

Did Robertson say it? Was it in his own words? Yes or no. Yes or no.

btw, why hunarcy acknowledge I was right and he was wrong, which means therefore you were wrong?

Are you calling him a liar too?

But to anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the OP, the point is not what he said or how he said it. Again--for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible or how he expressed it.

The point is whether he is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian, or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The point is whether ANYBODY is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The issue here is not whether Phil Robertson, or anybody else, is right or wrong. The issue is whether he should be allowed to be so long as he is not infringing on anybody else's rights.

And yes, I have strongly resisted anybody, left or right, who tried to introduce something different from that particular issue.

The issue is not partisanship.
The issue is not who or what is a Christian.
The issue is not who is worthy of criticism.
The issue is not advocacy groups whether left or right.
The issue is not who has said objectionable things.
The issue is not actions that have a physical or material affect on others.
The issue is not whether somebody else has done it too.
The issue is not whether I or anybody else is partisan.

The issue is whether the ability to say what we believe should be an unalienable right. Should we approve and let it stand unopposed when GLAAD, or ANY other group, left or right, demands that a person be physically or materially punished purely for expressing a belief not shared by the group?

I think your question is misleading. How is anyone's right to believe anything taken away by an advocacy group trying to convince a television station not to air a show that person is part of? The first sentence about whether saying what you believe is an unalienable right is not the same as the second about groups making demands. The right to have and express an opinion is not the same as the right to express it in any format you want without consequences.

Arguing the ethics of advocacy groups trying to get someone fired is not the same as arguing whether we have a right to say what we believe.

 

[ClosedCaption]

But to anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the OP, the point is not what he said or how he said it. Again--for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible or how he expressed it.

The point is whether he is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian, or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The point is whether ANYBODY is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The issue here is not whether Phil Robertson, or anybody else, is right or wrong. The issue is whether he should be allowed to be so long as he is not infringing on anybody else's rights.

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

Robertson has the right to try to convince people that homosexuals are evil. GLAAD has the same right to try to convince A&E that they should not give a television show to someone who does that.

Okay. So you are on the record that nobody is entitled to their opinion unless it is politically correct. We now live in a society that deems it proper to physically and/or materially punish those who don't think, believe, or speak what somebody else thinks they should be required to do. There is no more liberty in America to be who and what we are in peace unless we are among the well financed and powerful with sufficient clout.

Fox is trying (for 60 pages) to show you that GLAAD is intolerant and Robertson is right. She cant explain how two people do the same thing but she sees one as a negative and the other as a positive. She just softly demands you agree with her or risk being another one of the "intolerant"

 

[Vox]

Did Robertson say it? Was it in his own words? Yes or no. Yes or no.

btw, why hunarcy acknowledge I was right and he was wrong, which means therefore you were wrong?

Are you calling him a liar too?

just stop lying. he said it in a sermon.

and you thought those words were HIS OWN words as your leftard masters wanted you to believe.

and that is the problem here - you are a low information uneducated voter who can be brainwashed any way they want even when you look stupid.

so you did.

next time check you leftard "bibles" before believing every word they say.

I've proven they were his own words, your idiotic denials notwithstanding.

And what's funny, to point out he was giving a sermon you seem to think somehow makes it better for him?

So he was distorting a passage from the Bible to viciously defame homosexuals, and that's what makes it okay?

Praiseworthy?

then point is not that he was paraphrasing, the point is you have had no idea he was paraphrasing the Bible not speaking for himself and you lied repeatedly ( after couple of pages) as if you did know it.

You did not know he was quoting the Bible - and I proved it.
and now you are lying you did. even worse, you are insisting that those are his own words, which just makes you

therefore you are a liar.

you also acknowledged defeat by negging me - which is a sign of a white flag ALWAYS

 

[Montrovant]

But to anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the OP, the point is not what he said or how he said it. Again--for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible or how he expressed it.

The point is whether he is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian, or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The point is whether ANYBODY is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The issue here is not whether Phil Robertson, or anybody else, is right or wrong. The issue is whether he should be allowed to be so long as he is not infringing on anybody else's rights.

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

Robertson has the right to try to convince people that homosexuals are evil. GLAAD has the same right to try to convince A&E that they should not give a television show to someone who does that.

Okay. So you are on the record that nobody is entitled to their opinion unless it is politically correct. We now live in a society that deems it proper to physically and/or materially punish those who don't think, believe, or speak what somebody else thinks they should be required to do. There is no more liberty in America to be who and what we are in peace unless we are among the well financed and powerful with sufficient clout? Is that what you are saying?

That is not at all what I got from his statements.

What I see him saying is that, while you have the right to say what you wish (within the already established legal limits) you do not have the right to avoid any consequences from your words. If someone else dislikes your opinion and decides to stop buying a product you endorse because of it, they are free to do so.

I could just as easily say that you are on the record that nobody is entitled to their opinion if it could in any way affect another person's livelihood. There is no more liberty in America to be who and what we are in peace and we must continue to give our money to people no matter our opinions of them. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Dot Com]

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

Robertson has the right to try to convince people that homosexuals are evil. GLAAD has the same right to try to convince A&E that they should not give a television show to someone who does that.

Okay. So you are on the record that nobody is entitled to their opinion unless it is politically correct. We now live in a society that deems it proper to physically and/or materially punish those who don't think, believe, or speak what somebody else thinks they should be required to do. There is no more liberty in America to be who and what we are in peace unless we are among the well financed and powerful with sufficient clout.

Fox is trying (for 60 pages) to show you that GLAAD is intolerant and Robertson is right. She cant explain how two people do the same thing but she sees one as a negative and the other as a positive. She just softly demands you agree with her or risk being another one of the "intolerant"

^ that