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.
If this is accurate, and I don't know that it is without doing some further research, I wonder if our leftist friends condone this?
December 26, 2013
On Tuesday, the Daily Caller reported that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Discrimination -- the group responsible for A&E's suspension of Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson -- has repeatedly called for the censorship of speech and content with which they disagree.
GLAAD, the Daily Caller said, "aims specifically to silence political opponents and highlights its censorship efforts in public statements and fundraising pitches.
Goodbye free speech: GLAAD seeks to censor those critical of homosexuality - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com
#2, #4, #5
huh? Quit being intolerant of people.
#2 and #6
If this is accurate, and I don't know that it is without doing some further research, I wonder if our leftist friends condone this?
December 26, 2013
On Tuesday, the Daily Caller reported that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Discrimination -- the group responsible for A&E's suspension of Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson -- has repeatedly called for the censorship of speech and content with which they disagree.
GLAAD, the Daily Caller said, "aims specifically to silence political opponents and highlights its censorship efforts in public statements and fundraising pitches.
Goodbye free speech: GLAAD seeks to censor those critical of homosexuality - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com
I read it. It seems that the Daily Caller made several assumptions. GLAAD is going to do what they do. I take it you have issue with them wanting media personalities to push back against bigotry. Meh.....they can if the want.....or not. GLAAD saying they want them to is not a problem.
I am indifferent.
I am still trying to find out exactly what GLAAD did to Robertson.
I know they contacted A&E I believe that this contact was considered by A&E in their decision to suspend Robertson.
Is there any further detail available for review?
What threat of equal weight does Phil Robertson pose? GLAAD argues that he is guilty of hateful remarks about gays in that he equated homosexuality with bestiality. Of course, he did nothing of the sort.
He gave a partial list of those sexual activities i.e., all sexual activities outside Christian marriage as traditionally understood that according to the New Testament incur Gods condemnation. One of the items he listed was bestiality; another was homosexuality; a third was heterosexual promiscuity. He could have added masturbation if he had been answering a question in a Biblical quiz rather than one from a GQ interviewer. He did add a long list of non-sexual sins and sinners drunkards, swindlers, the greedy, slanderers, etc., etc. who are similarly risking damnation. But he also cited the usual qualifications about the mercy of God: We all deserve condemnation according to the Gospels but hopefully we wont all get it. He even threw in the admission that he himself had been guilty of some of the sexual sins under condemnation. And Robertson, though repentant, might well admit that his career of sinning may not be definitively over. As the Devil (brilliantly played by Ray Milland in Alias Nick Beal) responds to a street preachers boast that he had wrestled Satan to the mat and pinned his shoulders to the floor: He doesnt know that its two falls out of three.
In other words Robertson condemned everyone, including himself, as a sinner which in a social context is the same as condemning no one. He certainly did not single out gays for criticism. Its instructive that GQs good-humored interviewer, Drew Magary, was neither shocked nor horrified by what Robertson said. Though he self-identifies as a milquetoast suburban WASP, he clearly rather liked the Robertsons which he would not have done if Phil Robertson had been a hater. (Dont be deterred by the controversy from reading the GQ piece, incidentally; its highly entertaining.) Absolutely the most offensive thing about it is that Robertson does not disavow the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual acts are sinful. I can see that some gays might be upset by this, but they can hardly be surprised. Many have grown up in families holding exactly that conviction. We live in a society with different moral and religious traditions, and we must learn to live and let live.
But here is how the GLAAD spokesman characterized Robertsons remarks Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phils lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. . . . Phils decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT . . .
You want offensive? This is truly offensive. It combines lies about what Robertson said, a ludicrous attempt to define true Christianity along lines prescribed by GLAAD, and appeals for Robertsons livelihood to be cut off. It is a blacklist in operation, and it is an odious thing. It has worked before, though, and for a while it seemed to be working here. A&E suspended Robertson. But the public outcry is breaking heavily in Robertsons favor: The Cracker Barrel chain of downhome southern restaurants has now apologized for its brief capitulation to GLAADs bullying; the Robertsons are rich and confident enough to tell A&E that they wont appear without their patriarch; and it is now GLAAD that is on the ropes.
The New Blacklist | National Review Online
What's funny is that in reality not a single conservative on this board agrees with FF,
despite some pretending to.
The next time a liberal says something that is offensive to conservatives in the media, count how many of those people defend him or her.
so you post an opinion piece that you feel backs up your own OP thus never really challenging your own opinion to see if its the correct one, even though the Opinion piece posted is 1) from the national Review, 2) wrong, 3) being intolerant.
If this is accurate, and I don't know that it is without doing some further research, I wonder if our leftist friends condone this?
I read it. It seems that the Daily Caller made several assumptions. GLAAD is going to do what they do. I take it you have issue with them wanting media personalities to push back against bigotry. Meh.....they can if the want.....or not. GLAAD saying they want them to is not a problem.
I am indifferent.
lol, if that's true then GLAAD was only calling for exactly what Foxfyre was calling for with all that business about what she wanted to make illegal.
i read it. It seems that the daily caller made several assumptions. Glaad is going to do what they do. I take it you have issue with them wanting media personalities to push back against bigotry. Meh.....they can if the want.....or not. Glaad saying they want them to is not a problem.
I am indifferent.
lol, if that's true then glaad was only calling for exactly what foxfyre was calling for with all that business about what she wanted to make illegal.
its been pointed out and ignored as trolling under her opinion. Legally she has no standing thus remains in the court of opinion, but when you break her argument down. It becomes clear how hypocritical she really is being.
Omg she is mal
so you post an opinion piece that you feel backs up your own OP thus never really challenging your own opinion to see if its the correct one, even though the Opinion piece posted is 1) from the national Review, 2) wrong, 3) being intolerant.
#3 and #5
Does that article/essay support your overall point here, Fox?
And...why the insults in your intro? That is so unlike you.
lol, if that's true then glaad was only calling for exactly what foxfyre was calling for with all that business about what she wanted to make illegal.
its been pointed out and ignored as trolling under her opinion. Legally she has no standing thus remains in the court of opinion, but when you break her argument down. It becomes clear how hypocritical she really is being.
Omg she is mal
#1, #3, #5
so you post an opinion piece that you feel backs up your own OP thus never really challenging your own opinion to see if its the correct one, even though the Opinion piece posted is 1) from the national Review, 2) wrong, 3) being intolerant.
#3 and #5
see zero honest discussion of the topic.
Does that article/essay support your overall point here, Fox?
And...why the insults in your intro? That is so unlike you.
Yep. I can't find much to quarrel with in that article. But I would be open to hear a rebuttal to it if you have one.
What insults in the intro?????
I am still trying to find out exactly what GLAAD did to Robertson.
I know they contacted A&E. I believe that this contact was considered by A&E in their decision to suspend Robertson.
Is there any further detail available for review?
