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

[BDBoop]

Yes, that's usually what happens when an intelligent person agrees with you.

Now point out the same thing on the other side.

If you have thus far missed how I have pointed it out on ALL sides, you too really need a remedial reading course.

Those of you who think what GLAAD did, what the AFA did, is just fine and dandy because they weren't doing anything ILLEGAL, you are entitled to your opinion. I am just very happy that you are also in a very small, narrow minded, tunnel visioned minority. And I'm hoping there are far more people who choose to do the RIGHT thing instead of the merely 'legal' politically correct thing.

You may have missed the bit where I wasn't speaking to you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Okay, I've done my damndest to keep this thread non partisan and on point, but alas, the more sensible people here just can't help themselves. You wouldn't put the trolls on ignore when I requested and you just can't resist responding to them when requested. So I can't report the off topic posts without nailing the rest of you. LOL. Ah well. At least world peace or the eradication of hunger or who wins the Super Bowl doesn't hinge on this thread.

But what seems crystal clear in all of this:

1. With one or two exceptions it is the Lefties--and I can say unequivocably now that it is ONLY the lefties on this thread--who are unable to be objective, honest, fair, or any form of reasonable. They have accused those of us who are trying to debate the topic with every slur and insult short of us being Hitler, and I'm not sure that wasn't in there somewhere, and have accused us of being blindly partisan and much worse. I still say it is something in the water they drink that makes them unable to discuss anything without being personally insulting or partisan or ad hominem and keeps them from being able to understand what the point of the topic is.

Yes, some of those on the right are equally as insulting, but at least everybody on the right at some point in all of this has addressed the point of the topic.

2. With one or two exceptions, those on the left have not been willing or capable to address the topic itself. They are focused strictly on Phil Robertson as being the devil personified and/or any of us who think what GLAAD did was reprehensible. When asked if they think GLAAD and the AFA were right to do what they did, they will not answer that question with a yes or no. They go off into some other tangent or accuse me for asking the question.

In fairness to those on the left, so far very few on the right have commented that the AFA was every bit as reprehensible as GLAAD. I have now mentioned that several times and yet some, even some I consider friends, still accuse me of being partisan among a number of other unflattering adjectives. They also accuse me of defending Phil Robertson though I now numerous times have said I don't agree with his interpretation of scriptures in this issue and I didn't like the way he expressed it.

Nevertheless, amidst all the childishness, pettyness, hatefulness, deliberate derails, and other nonsense, whether you have agreed with me or not, I hope the intelligent few who have understood the point of the OP and were grown up enough to actually discuss it, have been able to raise the consciousness a bit of those who have been reading in.

At some point, if good people do not begin demanding that we push back against those who demonstrate nothing but hate in the name of political correctness and who would demand that everybody share their views and opinions or else, we will lose all of our unalienable right to be who and what we are. Maybe the GLAAD and Phil Robertson bruhaha is the place where we start turning that around.

Coming from the person who wanted to 'criminalize' GLAAD's protest which is perfectly LEGAL. And use the full weight of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

You really are one haughty, narcissistic blind partisan.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, that's usually what happens when an intelligent person agrees with you.

Now point out the same thing on the other side.

If you have thus far missed how I have pointed it out on ALL sides, you too really need a remedial reading course.

Those of you who think what GLAAD did, what the AFA did, is just fine and dandy because they weren't doing anything ILLEGAL, you are entitled to your opinion. I am just very happy that you are also in a very small, narrow minded, tunnel visioned minority. And I'm hoping there are far more people who choose to do the RIGHT thing instead of the merely 'legal' politically correct thing.

You may have missed the bit where I wasn't speaking to you.

Sorry to hear that. But oh well. Your choice. Your right.

I wish some of your friends who have accused me of about every hateful thing they can think of would join you with that.

Meanwhile I shall continue to believe that good people allow people to be who and what they are whether or not we agree with them. Alas, it appears some simply do not have the ability to do that.

 

[BDBoop]

If you have thus far missed how I have pointed it out on ALL sides, you too really need a remedial reading course.

Those of you who think what GLAAD did, what the AFA did, is just fine and dandy because they weren't doing anything ILLEGAL, you are entitled to your opinion. I am just very happy that you are also in a very small, narrow minded, tunnel visioned minority. And I'm hoping there are far more people who choose to do the RIGHT thing instead of the merely 'legal' politically correct thing.

You may have missed the bit where I wasn't speaking to you.

Sorry to hear that. But oh well. Your choice. Your right.

I wish some of your friends who have accused me of about every hateful thing they can think of would join you with that.

Meanwhile I shall continue to believe that good people allow people to be who and what they are whether or not we agree with them. Alas, it appears some simply do not have the ability to do that.

Foxfyre!! Honestly and for crying in the proverbial beer. MY POST WAS NOT DIRECTED TO YOU. I was speaking to someone else at the time.

Seriously.

 

[BDBoop]

Maybe you have stated this already.....but I ask:

What should GLAAD have done? Exactly.

Personally, I think they should have done nothing. They were not targeted. They were not attacked. They were not threatened. They were not mentioned. To get all incensed and combative purely because Phil Robertson is a Christian and interprets the Bible fundamentally makes GLAAD look small, petty, and hateful.

If they felt he had somehow defamed gays and lesbians, they should have objected to GQ publishing the article. And they could have done that with a strongly worded Letter to the Editor. Stating that you strongly disagree with somebody is A-okay. But presuming to physically or financially blugeon them into being politically correct is not okay.

Foxfyre, that is the most intelligent post I've read regarding the Robertson/Duck Dynasty debacle to date.

Yes, that's usually what happens when an intelligent person agrees with you.

Now point out the same thing on the other side.

See? Not you.

/sigh

 

[Statistikhengst]

Okay, I've done my damndest to keep this thread non partisan and on point, but alas, the more sensible people here just can't help themselves. You wouldn't put the trolls on ignore when I requested and you just can't resist responding to them when requested. So I can't report the off topic posts without nailing the rest of you. LOL. Ah well. At least world peace or the eradication of hunger or who wins the Super Bowl doesn't hinge on this thread.

But what seems crystal clear in all of this:

1. With one or two exceptions it is the Lefties--and I can say unequivocably now that it is ONLY the lefties on this thread--who are unable to be objective, honest, fair, or any form of reasonable. They have accused those of us who are trying to debate the topic with every slur and insult short of us being Hitler, and I'm not sure that wasn't in there somewhere, and have accused us of being blindly partisan and much worse. I still say it is something in the water they drink that makes them unable to discuss anything without being personally insulting or partisan or ad hominem and keeps them from being able to understand what the point of the topic is.

Yes, some of those on the right are equally as insulting, but at least everybody on the right at some point in all of this has addressed the point of the topic.

2. With one or two exceptions, those on the left have not been willing or capable to address the topic itself. They are focused strictly on Phil Robertson as being the devil personified and/or any of us who think what GLAAD did was reprehensible. When asked if they think GLAAD and the AFA were right to do what they did, they will not answer that question with a yes or no. They go off into some other tangent or accuse me for asking the question.

In fairness to those on the left, so far very few on the right have commented that the AFA was every bit as reprehensible as GLAAD. I have now mentioned that several times and yet some, even some I consider friends, still accuse me of being partisan among a number of other unflattering adjectives. They also accuse me of defending Phil Robertson though I now numerous times have said I don't agree with his interpretation of scriptures in this issue and I didn't like the way he expressed it.

Nevertheless, amidst all the childishness, pettyness, hatefulness, deliberate derails, and other nonsense, whether you have agreed with me or not, I hope the intelligent few who have understood the point of the OP and were grown up enough to actually discuss it, have been able to raise the consciousness a bit of those who have been reading in.

At some point, if good people do not begin demanding that we push back against those who demonstrate nothing but hate in the name of political correctness and who would demand that everybody share their views and opinions or else, we will lose all of our unalienable right to be who and what we are. Maybe the GLAAD and Phil Robertson bruhaha is the place where we start turning that around.

The bolded: Oh, what a bunch of bullshit. You are anything but neutral. What a shame that you decided to play the "I am neutral" game just to shit on liberals. You should shame yourself all the way down to your toes, Foxfyre. For every posting that you claim is over the top by Libs here on this thread, I am pretty sure that I can show you two posts by Cons that are equally lacking in class, or even worse.

6 times I confronted you about the "physical harm" issue. I brought facts to the table. You avoided. And now you want to impugne Libs for bad behaviour on a thread?

I think you have had too much Christmas Punch, really!

 

[The T]

. EXPLAIN.

NEVER stated that, did he?
Didn't state that either, did he? Never mentioned Hannity...Do you have a fixation? WHY can't YOU stay on topic? EVER?

Simple.

Only for subject changing freaks like you Lunger. NOW get back on TOPIC.

I wonder why the most condescending nutters are also the least intelligent?

Ever look in a mirror? WHY can't you stay on topic?

 

[LoneLaugher]

. EXPLAIN.

NEVER stated that, did he?
Didn't state that either, did he? Never mentioned Hannity...Do you have a fixation? WHY can't YOU stay on topic? EVER?
Only for subject changing freaks like you Lunger. NOW get back on TOPIC.

I wonder why the most condescending nutters are also the least intelligent?

Ever look in a mirror? WHY can't you stay on topic?

In what world are you a person who stays on topic? Conversations have flow.....you can o with it.....or not. This whining you are doing about staying on topic is but a defense mechanism for you. Try harder and maybe you can rid yourself of that.

You responded to my hypotheticals in a manner that exposes your lack of intellect. I was having a discussion with another person. You felt as though that person could not answer correctly.....so you piped in. You piped in stupidly. You failed.

It is....in fact.....possible to prove that another person's belief is wrong. Don't you agree?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And isn't that the whole concept of tolerance in the first place? Allowing others to be different? Allowing others their opinion, belief, convictions so long as they don't force them on others? Allowing people to be wrong?

Allowing people to be wrong?

If ANYTHING is PC......that is it.

No, that is a very classical liberal aka modern American conservative concept. The right to ones own thoughts, beliefs, opinions, convictions--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as my rights require no participation by or contribution from you. It means that GLAAD is allowed to believe that Phil Robertson is a religious bigot but will leave him alone and will not seek to actively punish him for his beliefs. It means that Phil Robertson is allowed to believe homosexuals won't make it into heaven but he doesn't do anything to physically or materially hurt gays.

It means allowing people--people who are not violating the rights of others--to be who and what they are without fear that the government or the Church or some mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically or materially harm them.

No.

It means that when American Muslims want to build a place of worship in the 'wrong' place,

conservatives throw a nationwide fit of outrage and hatred.

Clean up your own filthy house first before you start telling others how to behave.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Foxfyre spent this whole thread attacking GLAAD, but never once told us specifically what GLAAD did that was supposedly unacceptable.

She kept saying that GLAAD was forcing them to do this and that, which turned out to be a totally ignorant lie,

since A&E is doing what they choose to do, not having been 'forced' to do anything.

Foxfyre is the worst sort of do-gooder on the planet.

 

[GreenBean]

.....Meanwhile I shall continue to believe that good people allow people to be who and what they are whether or not we agree with them. Alas, it appears some simply do not have the ability to do that.

Homosexuals are not by their very nature - "Good People" They preach tolerance for Gays but rabidly practice completely the opposite for anybody who dares to oppose their perverted agenda.

Basically Gays and Liberals are Intolerant about Intolerance , or their warped definition of Intolerance that is.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.....Meanwhile I shall continue to believe that good people allow people to be who and what they are whether or not we agree with them. Alas, it appears some simply do not have the ability to do that.

Homosexuals are not by their very nature - "Good People" They preach tolerance for Gays but rabidly practice completely the opposite for anybody who dares to oppose their perverted agenda.

Basically Gays and Liberals are Intolerant about Intolerance , or their warped definition of Intolerance that is.

I know! Those homo's are so against hetero's! They discriminate against us normal folk all the time! So intolerant of our lifestyle. I can hardly get anything done in this life without agreeing to suck a dick!

 

[TemplarKormac]

. EXPLAIN.

NEVER stated that, did he?
Didn't state that either, did he? Never mentioned Hannity...Do you have a fixation? WHY can't YOU stay on topic? EVER?
Only for subject changing freaks like you Lunger. NOW get back on TOPIC.

I wonder why the most condescending nutters are also the least intelligent?

Ever look in a mirror? WHY can't you stay on topic?

Just stop lending these trolls any credence by your responses. You can tolerate them having their opinions without entertaining their opinions.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder why the most condescending nutters are also the least intelligent?

Ever look in a mirror? WHY can't you stay on topic?

Just stop lending these trolls any credence by your responses. You can tolerate them having their opinions without entertaining their opinions.

Hark! Who goes there?! Alas!

 

[BDBoop]

Ever look in a mirror? WHY can't you stay on topic?

Just stop lending these trolls any credence by your responses. You can tolerate them having their opinions without entertaining their opinions.

Hark! Who goes there! Alas!

Kind of ironic. GLAAD isn't supposed to try to effect change in the face of pure ugliness (Bible-based even, amen). But there's an entire segment of people in this thread trying to control the flow of conversation.

 

[kaz]

.....Meanwhile I shall continue to believe that good people allow people to be who and what they are whether or not we agree with them. Alas, it appears some simply do not have the ability to do that.

Homosexuals are not by their very nature - "Good People" They preach tolerance for Gays but rabidly practice completely the opposite for anybody who dares to oppose their perverted agenda.

Basically Gays and Liberals are Intolerant about Intolerance , or their warped definition of Intolerance that is.

I know! Those homo's are so against hetero's! They discriminate against us normal folk all the time! So intolerant of our lifestyle. I can hardly get anything done in this life without agreeing to suck a dick!

You've done a lot of that. Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama...

You're only tolerant of people you agree with, and them you go down on.

 

[GreenBean]

Just stop lending these trolls any credence by your responses. You can tolerate them having their opinions without entertaining their opinions.

Hark! Who goes there! Alas!

Kind of ironic. GLAAD isn't supposed to try to effect change in the face of pure ugliness (Bible-based even, amen). But there's an entire segment of people in this thread trying to control the flow of conversation.

Pope Benedict ... said the Roman Catholic Church opposes homosexual acts and wishes to help those who engage in such acts. ..he said, “should … protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed.”

The previous week, the Rev. Rick Warren made a statement opposing gay marriage, Warren said, “I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

The gay community attacked both the pope and Warren ...labeled the pope's words, “totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form.”... “Rick Warren is somebody who has opposed our equality.”

Here's my question: What's the big deal? It isn't as though the pope and Rick Warren are articulating anything new — they're articulating the same traditional Judeo-Christian perspective that has been a moral standard for thousands of years. So why the hubbub? Warren is not stating that he wants to criminalize homosexuality. And the pope is merely suggesting that sexuality may be flexible, and that sexual behavior can be changed. Where's the big threat to the gay community?

The gay community constantly asks: If we want to marry, how does it hurt you? Here's a similar question: If religious people don't approve of homosexual behavior, how does it hurt you? We're not advocating violence against gays and lesbians — far from it. We're not going to invade your bedrooms and toss your same-sex partners in prison. We're not advocating that you be fired from your job.

So how does it hurt you?
The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda

Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming" which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda.

Throughout the 1990s, the media message pertaining to treatment of Homosexuals was "Tolerance". However, as society became more tolerant of their affliction largely through educational and media mind programming we have become less tolerant of those who refuse to subscribe to this political correctness. Its difficult to fathom, but there was a time not long ago, when morality and virtue was celebrated in mainstream society. Today, anybody in the public eye particularly the mainstream media who dares to disagree with homosexuality or homosexual viewpoints will more than likely be fired, branded and blacklisted.
Weapons of Mass Seduction

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, I've done my damndest to keep this thread non partisan and on point, but alas, the more sensible people here just can't help themselves. You wouldn't put the trolls on ignore when I requested and you just can't resist responding to them when requested. So I can't report the off topic posts without nailing the rest of you. LOL. Ah well. At least world peace or the eradication of hunger or who wins the Super Bowl doesn't hinge on this thread.

But what seems crystal clear in all of this:

1. With one or two exceptions it is the Lefties--and I can say unequivocably now that it is ONLY the lefties on this thread--who are unable to be objective, honest, fair, or any form of reasonable. They have accused those of us who are trying to debate the topic with every slur and insult short of us being Hitler, and I'm not sure that wasn't in there somewhere, and have accused us of being blindly partisan and much worse. I still say it is something in the water they drink that makes them unable to discuss anything without being personally insulting or partisan or ad hominem and keeps them from being able to understand what the point of the topic is.

Yes, some of those on the right are equally as insulting, but at least everybody on the right at some point in all of this has addressed the point of the topic.

2. With one or two exceptions, those on the left have not been willing or capable to address the topic itself. They are focused strictly on Phil Robertson as being the devil personified and/or any of us who think what GLAAD did was reprehensible. When asked if they think GLAAD and the AFA were right to do what they did, they will not answer that question with a yes or no. They go off into some other tangent or accuse me for asking the question.

In fairness to those on the left, so far very few on the right have commented that the AFA was every bit as reprehensible as GLAAD. I have now mentioned that several times and yet some, even some I consider friends, still accuse me of being partisan among a number of other unflattering adjectives. They also accuse me of defending Phil Robertson though I now numerous times have said I don't agree with his interpretation of scriptures in this issue and I didn't like the way he expressed it.

Nevertheless, amidst all the childishness, pettyness, hatefulness, deliberate derails, and other nonsense, whether you have agreed with me or not, I hope the intelligent few who have understood the point of the OP and were grown up enough to actually discuss it, have been able to raise the consciousness a bit of those who have been reading in.

At some point, if good people do not begin demanding that we push back against those who demonstrate nothing but hate in the name of political correctness and who would demand that everybody share their views and opinions or else, we will lose all of our unalienable right to be who and what we are. Maybe the GLAAD and Phil Robertson bruhaha is the place where we start turning that around.

Oh, what a bunch of bullshit. You are anything but neutral. What a shame that you decided to play the "I am neutral" game just to shit on liberals. You should shame yourself all the way down to your toes, Fyrefox. For every posting that you claim is over the top by Libs here on this thread, I am pretty sure that I can show you two posts by Cons that are equally lacking in class, or even worse.

6 times I confronted you about the "physical harm" issue. I brought facts to the table. You avoided. And now you want to impugne Libs for bad behaviour on a thread.

I think you have had too much Christmas Punch, really!

And I do think it must be something in the water you libs drink that causes such reading dysfunction. I have stated my position on the 'physical harm' concept several times now and you have yet to address that, so you can just get off your high horse about that please. I have also very clearly addressed that I think some on the right side of the line have also behaved badly and you seem to be incapable of reading that too. If it isn't reading dysfunction, it is selective reading.

But one thing I haven't done is attack any of you on the left or right personally and hatefully which almost every one of you on the left - none on the right - have now done to me. Which is probably why you think it is just fine and dandy that GLAAD attacked Phil Robertson personally and you have no moral or ethical problem with that whatsoever. Phil Robertson isn't on 'your side' and he is not politically correct. Therefore he can be personally destroyed and, with a couple of exceptions, you folks on the left think that's just hunky dory okay.

I think that is also a common trait of the Left if the posts in this thread are any indication. None of you are capable of making a rational argument to rebut a concept you don't like. It's pretty hard to rebut a concept of allowing people to be who and what they are without fear of physical and/or material harm from some mob, group, or organization. So you attack the messenger.

I tried to keep this non partisan and on point. You folks on the left wouldn't let me. So since you have insisted, let's make it about that.

Just how tolerant and open and honest and fair minded do you think you are? Is Phil Robertson such a terrible person because of his interpretation of the Bible that he deserves to be personally destroyed? You all apparently think so. So who gets to decide what and who somebody is allowed to be? And who gets punished for who and what they are?

 

[hunarcy]

Just stop lending these trolls any credence by your responses. You can tolerate them having their opinions without entertaining their opinions.

Hark! Who goes there! Alas!

Kind of ironic. GLAAD isn't supposed to try to effect change in the face of pure ugliness (Bible-based even, amen). But there's an entire segment of people in this thread trying to control the flow of conversation.

So, you want people to just let these people deflect and distort to prevent a real conversation? And, no one says YOU have to put anyone on ignore that you think is a legitimate poster. Just try to avoid encouraging those who aren't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, I've done my damndest to keep this thread non partisan and on point, but alas, the more sensible people here just can't help themselves. You wouldn't put the trolls on ignore when I requested and you just can't resist responding to them when requested. So I can't report the off topic posts without nailing the rest of you. LOL. Ah well. At least world peace or the eradication of hunger or who wins the Super Bowl doesn't hinge on this thread.

But what seems crystal clear in all of this:

1. With one or two exceptions it is the Lefties--and I can say unequivocably now that it is ONLY the lefties on this thread--who are unable to be objective, honest, fair, or any form of reasonable. They have accused those of us who are trying to debate the topic with every slur and insult short of us being Hitler, and I'm not sure that wasn't in there somewhere, and have accused us of being blindly partisan and much worse. I still say it is something in the water they drink that makes them unable to discuss anything without being personally insulting or partisan or ad hominem and keeps them from being able to understand what the point of the topic is.

Yes, some of those on the right are equally as insulting, but at least everybody on the right at some point in all of this has addressed the point of the topic.

2. With one or two exceptions, those on the left have not been willing or capable to address the topic itself. They are focused strictly on Phil Robertson as being the devil personified and/or any of us who think what GLAAD did was reprehensible. When asked if they think GLAAD and the AFA were right to do what they did, they will not answer that question with a yes or no. They go off into some other tangent or accuse me for asking the question.

In fairness to those on the left, so far very few on the right have commented that the AFA was every bit as reprehensible as GLAAD. I have now mentioned that several times and yet some, even some I consider friends, still accuse me of being partisan among a number of other unflattering adjectives. They also accuse me of defending Phil Robertson though I now numerous times have said I don't agree with his interpretation of scriptures in this issue and I didn't like the way he expressed it.

Nevertheless, amidst all the childishness, pettyness, hatefulness, deliberate derails, and other nonsense, whether you have agreed with me or not, I hope the intelligent few who have understood the point of the OP and were grown up enough to actually discuss it, have been able to raise the consciousness a bit of those who have been reading in.

At some point, if good people do not begin demanding that we push back against those who demonstrate nothing but hate in the name of political correctness and who would demand that everybody share their views and opinions or else, we will lose all of our unalienable right to be who and what we are. Maybe the GLAAD and Phil Robertson bruhaha is the place where we start turning that around.

Oh, what a bunch of bullshit. You are anything but neutral. What a shame that you decided to play the "I am neutral" game just to shit on liberals. You should shame yourself all the way down to your toes, Fyrefox. For every posting that you claim is over the top by Libs here on this thread, I am pretty sure that I can show you two posts by Cons that are equally lacking in class, or even worse.

6 times I confronted you about the "physical harm" issue. I brought facts to the table. You avoided. And now you want to impugne Libs for bad behaviour on a thread.

I think you have had too much Christmas Punch, really!

And I do think it must be something in the water you libs drink that causes such reading dysfunction. I have stated my position on the 'physical harm' concept several times now and you have yet to address that, so you can just get off your high horse about that please. I have also very clearly addressed that I think some on the right side of the line have also behaved badly and you seem to be incapable of reading that too. If it isn't reading dysfunction, it is selective reading.

But one thing I haven't done is attack any of you on the left or right personally and hatefully which almost every one of you on the left - none on the right - have now done to me. Which is probably why you think it is just fine and dandy that GLAAD attacked Phil Robertson personally and you have no moral or ethical problem with that whatsoever. Phil Robertson isn't on 'your side' and he is not politically correct. Therefore he can be personally destroyed and, with a couple of exceptions, you folks on the left think that's just hunky dory okay.

I think that is also a common trait of the Left if the posts in this thread are any indication. None of you are capable of making a rational argument to rebut a concept you don't like. It's pretty hard to rebut a concept of allowing people to be who and what they are without fear of physical and/or material harm from some mob, group, or organization. So you attack the messenger.

I tried to keep this non partisan and on point. You folks on the left wouldn't let me. So since you have insisted, let's make it about that.

Just how tolerant and open and honest and fair minded do you think you are? Is Phil Robertson such a terrible person because of his interpretation of the Bible that he deserves to be personally destroyed? You all apparently think so. So who gets to decide what and who somebody is allowed to be? And who gets punished for who and what they are?

You're the reason we have laws. If GLAAD did anything to A&E that was outside the law, then the law can deal with that.