Post: #101

I'd love some moronic progressive to listen to this:

Post: #102

Gays will never win the religious argument. Marriage is between a man and a woman. They may win the legal argument however. They are getting civil unions in certain states which for all intents and purposes is the same thing under a different name.

I think their issue is with society in general. By arguing that gay marriage is legally right they are also trying to cross the line and say gay marriage is morally right. Their issue is with god.

Post: #103

Given the current climate I think that marriage between men and women should be outlawed as well...

Post: #104

(12-21-2013 01:30 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  How is the non-profit GLAAD able to spend its funds paying to get people fired and threatening their advertisers? Isn't this a violation of their non-profit charter?

I notice both, "GLAAD spoke with A&E representatives on Wednesday morning." and "The organization is also currently researching companies who use Robertson as a spokesperson." (source)

These doesn't seem like valid activities for a non-profit that receives charitable donations, and in fact should invalidate its non-profit charter.

GLAAD received 6 million in donations and grants in 2011 alone.
http://www.glaad.org/sites/default/files...902010.pdf

Section 501©(3) organizations cannot engage in political activities. Section 501©(4) organizations can engage in political activities. If you want to determine the difference between the two, just Google it. (What is the problem with placing a "c" within parentheses?)

Post: #105

At first everybody was upset about his comments.... then you had the free speech people speaking up and of course the response to that was he can speak his mind just like AE has the right to fire him.... and I dont disagree

This all got me thinking. What good is free speech if the general public will scold you for your opinion, or even threaten your life, family's life, or livelihood. The public does not accept people having different opinions. This tells me that free speech is long gone already but will be gone by law withn a decade or so. Feminist would love to track down people on this board and have them fired from their jobs or ruin their lives in any other way.

What I do find funny is that IMO if the majority of the people raising hell about this were born in his shoes, in his time, they would believe the same shit he does. I wonder how much anti homosexual propaganda that guy has seen in his life?

Post: #106

Charlie Sheen weighs in:

http://laist.com/2013/12/21/charlie_shee...ty_guy.php

Quote:hey Mallard brained Phil Robertso! you have offended and hurt so many dear friends of mine, who DO NOT have the voice or the outreach that I do. well news flash shower-dodger, I will speak loudly and clearly for ALL of them. so, just when your desperately sub evolved ass thought the pressure was off, you are now in the crosshairs of a MaSheen style media beat down. (I'll try to keep the big words to a minimum as not to confuse you)

your statements were and are
abhorrently and
mendaciously unforgivable.

the idea that you have a job
outside of dirt-clod stacking
is a miracle.

the only 'Dynasty' you are attached to might be the
re-runs of that dated show.

the only thing you should ever be in charge of building is a hole in the ground the exact size of your head.
perhaps your beard would fit as well if you plucked out the
army of scabies and
bull weevils sequestered deep in it's sarcophagus of dander and weasel pelts.

shame on you.
you're the only surviving
brain donor I've ever known.

when the gators and Egrets
kick you out of their
hovel,
you need to make serious amends to those you have
radically offended.

on the eight day
when I was whittling my cosmic banjo,
I'm pretty sure YOU were the scattered dross I then used to light a fire and
locate the nearest
Andy Gump.

repulsed by you;
c sheen

hash tag;
Duck; that was me.

All this over-the-top phoney outrage. If you so much as think it's gross that a man stick his dick in another man's rectum you can expect to be tar and feathered by Hollywood and the media. Doesn't matter if you don't behave badly to gays, just finding their act of gay sex to be gross is all it takes. The straight supporters of the gay movement are far worse than the gays could ever be. I suspect this comes from a sense of guilt and they are overreaching to make up for it.

Post: #107

Obviously ol' Phil isn't a fan of feminists either;

Quote:“Get someone who is meek, gentle, kind-spirited …a country girl that loves to eat bullfrogs – now there’s a woman. Don’t get no yuppie girl."

I'll pass on the bullfrogs, but the rest sounds good.

Post: #108

To be more precise, Glaad acts like a (4) but wants to receive money like a (3). Section 501©(3) organizations cannot engage in political activities, and donations are tax deductible. Section 501©(4) organizations can engage in political activities and donations to them are not tax deductible.

Glaad not only receives donations as a 501©3, but asks donors to force their employers into issuing matching donations as well.

If Glaad were to lose its 501©3 status and be forced to the more appropriate 501©4 for their non-charitable charter activities like getting people fired and shaking down advertisers of people they don't like, how much of that 6 million donated to it as a tax deduction would dry up? For starters, all those corporate matching funds would disappear.

Post: #109

(12-21-2013 10:01 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Obviously ol' Phil isn't a fan of feminists either;

Quote:“Get someone who is meek, gentle, kind-spirited …a country girl that loves to eat bullfrogs – now there’s a woman. Don’t get no yuppie girl."

I'll pass on the bullfrogs, but the rest sounds good.

You're missing out on the bullfrogs, man, they're fucking delicious when breaded and deep fried (then again, what isn't?).

Post: #110

(12-21-2013 11:03 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  To be more precise, Glaad acts like a (4) but wants to receive money like a (3). Section 501©(3) organizations cannot engage in political activities, and donations are tax deductible. Section 501©(4) organizations can engage in political activities and donations to them are not tax deductible.

Glaad not only receives donations as a 501©3, but asks donors to force their employers into issuing matching donations as well.

If Glaad were to lose its 501©3 status and be forced to the more appropriate 501©4 for their non-charitable charter activities like getting people fired and shaking down advertisers of people they don't like, how much of that 6 million donated to it as a tax deduction would dry up? For starters, all those corporate matching funds would disappear.

Force? It's just asking to if one is willing to ask employers who match donations to match the employees donation.

Post: #111

Post: #112

(12-20-2013 08:02 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:53 AM)la_mode Wrote:  Too much right-wing pandering. Sometimes I wonder if most on this forum would collectively support Huckabee or Santorum.

The reality is, he could have said something racist, wouldn't matter nearly as much. Which is dumb, but that's how it is.

The immediate reaction to applaud this guys anti-gay comments does come across a bit ignorant though.

How were his comments even "anti-gay"? It read to me like he didn't understand how guys could be gay, said that they wouldn't inherit the kingdom of god but he would never personally disrespect a gay person.

Anti-gay and redneck would have been "I ain't sellin no duck calls to any faggots"

To me, there is a fine line. He is being persecuted because he's 'gay neutral' not for it, but not crusading against it.

Imagine that, if you were declared 'anti-gay' because you didn't go to the pride parade in Toronto or chose not to put a rainbow flag up at your house.

I agree that his comments were not anti-gay. He didn't just start ranting unprovoked; he was responding to this question:

Quote:What, in your mind, is sinful?

Notice that the question asked for his opinion on an extremely controversial topic. What if he would have focused on his ideas about abortion as his example of what was sinful? Would he be in this media shit-storm then?

And even if he would have, why? Everyone has an opinion about abortion. Everyone has an opinion about homosexual acts. They're polarizing subjects.

He said:

Quote:Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.

Note that it includes behavior between men and women. Why aren't people on him about saying casual sex is sinful?

And he said the famous:

Quote:It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

So he said it's not logical to prefer a vagina over a guy's butthole? Really? Big fucking deal - I don't see how this could offend even if you were gay. It's a simple matter of opinion. Doesn't sound that extreme to me at all...

And he went on to say:

Quote:We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?

You could say he's comparing homosexuals to terrorists, but you could also say he's comparing drunks to terrorists, and there are a lot of drunks in our society. You don't see them throwing a fit.

In fact, most drunks would laugh off the idea of them being sinners as a prudish, uptight thought. Just like most promiscious heterosexuals would laugh off the idea of being sinners. Why can't gays do the same?

These are his personal opinions, and he's not claiming to judge people or ostracizing anyone. He's just saying he thinks it's sinful but that it's up to God to make the call on it.

After being suspended, he said:

Quote:I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me.

Okay, he was defending himself at this point, fair enough. But it also seems to correspond with his assertion that it's not up to us to judge gays for their "sins."

It's bullshit to persecute this guy based on the above. He didn't even say gays were going to hell, for crying out loud (which he very well may believe) - he just said it was a sinful act. That's a matter of opinion and it's not that far out to propose it is illogical or unnatural either, given that you could create plenty of logical arguments stating his case, even if you weren't religious.

I never understood people getting all sensitive about saying gays are going to Hell. That's how religious people think. A hard-core Christian no doubt thinks I'm going to hell. And every other guy on this forum, probably. Some think every person who doesn't go to church on Sundays is going to hell.

So fucking what? It's not like they're trying to burn me at the stake or anything.

(12-20-2013 01:44 PM)soup Wrote:  I read that this guy also has a thing against black people. How does that make all you guys feel about him now?

Where? And what did he say? It doesn't seem very credible to say "I heard he's racist" and ask people to form an opinion based on that. I've heard things said about a lot of people. They're often misunderstood, misquoted, or purposely tarred and feathered.

(12-20-2013 02:04 PM)yb13 Wrote:  I believe in freedom of speech, but people need to accept consequences as a result of their decision making too. Just like Twitter has the right to hire whoever they want for upper tier positions, A&E has the right to structure a company based on how they want to be portrayed in public.

Do I agree with how A&E went about this? Not really. I think they should've set the guy aside and talked to him about things before making this impulsive decision.

Sure.

But there's also a need to make it clear what your actors are allowed to discuss and what they're not - most employers are required to lay down the ground rules. If Robertson knew that any discussion of gay people with the media that wasn't completely pro-gay was grounds for being suspended, he could have at least avoided the subject.

Maybe it was in his contract and he overlooked it, but I imagine that would have come up by now.

(12-20-2013 10:51 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19...lp00000009

I get how some want to split hairs on his comments regarding homosexuality, but here the man illustrates how truly ignorant he is.

With all due respect, I don't think it shows how ignorant he is at all. This article does very little to put what he said into context. It doesn't even mention the question that ellicted him relaying his experiences.

Were some black people "happy" pre-Civil rights? Maybe a lot of them? I would say probably. That doesn't mean slavery wasn't horrible and unjust, but happiness is a very relative state, and people tend to go through all ranges of emotions regardless of their station in life. Just because he didn't see the horrors of slavery doesn't mean he thinks those horrors didn't exist.

While it's very clear what the article is trying to imply, without the content surrounding this quote, it's extremely difficult to draw any conclusions about what he was actually saying.

All I see is one man relaying his experiences of how black people in his area lived pre-Civil war. His observations not being in line with what we expect people to say does not make him ignorant or some kind of monster. And given what I know about how the media plays its game, I'm not prepared to draw a conclusion.

Quote:"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #113

I thought this would be standard entertainment news and then be done with. I was wrong. People in church today were all squawking about it, including old men...which is unusual.

Even more unusual was that pastor taking time at the end of the christmas sermon to say he is going to talk specifically about it next week...again which is highly unusual.

granted, I live in the south, but this is a stronger reaction than i had anticipated. Anyone else notice anything going on besides whats on TV?

Post: #114

Phil Robertson:

Pro life....except when it comes to wildlife.

Another "old fashioned" man, another hypocrite.

Post: #115

I think the reason it has gotten so much attention is that it has woken up a lot of people to how much the culture has shifted around them. These would have been considered to be mainstream views not that long ago.

Post: #116

(12-22-2013 01:51 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Phil Robertson:

Pro life....except when it comes to wildlife.

Another "old fashioned" man, another hypocrite.

You're joking right? I hope you're not one of those animal rights activists.

Human life and animal life are not the same thing. We eat animals for food.
There's nothing immoral about that. Animals are on a lower level of the food chain.
We don't eat humans for food.

Post: #117

(12-22-2013 03:51 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 01:51 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Phil Robertson:

Pro life....except when it comes to wildlife.

Another "old fashioned" man, another hypocrite.

You're joking right? I hope you're not one of those animal rights activists.

Human life and animal life are not the same thing. We eat animals for food.
There's nothing immoral about that. Animals are on a lower level of the food chain.
We don't eat humans for food.

I was thinking the same WTF?

Post: #118

If we aren't supposed to eat animals why do they taste so damn good?

Post: #119

(12-22-2013 03:51 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 01:51 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Phil Robertson:

Pro life....except when it comes to wildlife.

Another "old fashioned" man, another hypocrite.

You're joking right? I hope you're not one of those animal rights activists.

Human life and animal life are not the same thing. We eat animals for food.
There's nothing immoral about that. Animals are on a lower level of the food chain.
We don't eat humans for food.

Hey, I belong to PETA!

"People Eating Tasty Animals"

Post: #120

(12-22-2013 02:57 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  I think the reason it has gotten so much attention is that it has woken up a lot of people to how much the culture has shifted around them. These would have been considered to be mainstream views not that long ago.

Yeah, even 6-7 years ago his statements would not be in any way controversial except among the most blue-nosed LA / NYC circles. Unfortunately due to feminism / blue-pill thinking, our culture is completely incapable of mustering any sort of rational defense against gay marriage proponents because the groundwork for it was laid decades ago with the dismantling of various different social agreements and institutions.

Even with the absolute bombardment of pro-homosexual propaganda you see on TV, it's still astounding how spineless and closed-minded the average American has become.

Post: #121

(12-22-2013 03:51 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 01:51 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Phil Robertson:

Pro life....except when it comes to wildlife.

Another "old fashioned" man, another hypocrite.

You're joking right? I hope you're not one of those animal rights activists.

Human life and animal life are not the same thing. We eat animals for food.
There's nothing immoral about that. Animals are on a lower level of the food chain.
We don't eat humans for food.

I'm not an activist but most people like the Robertsons and their customers hunt for fun in their honky tonk mentality, not because they have a NEED to hunt.

It's like those yuppies who are into organic/local/humane food. It's not due to necessity but rather because it's attractive to them.

Post: #122

(12-22-2013 05:25 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 03:51 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 01:51 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Phil Robertson:

Pro life....except when it comes to wildlife.

Another "old fashioned" man, another hypocrite.

You're joking right? I hope you're not one of those animal rights activists.

Human life and animal life are not the same thing. We eat animals for food.
There's nothing immoral about that. Animals are on a lower level of the food chain.
We don't eat humans for food.

I'm not an activist but most people like the Robertsons and their customers hunt for fun in their honky tonk mentality, not because they have a NEED to hunt.

It's like those yuppies who are into organic/local/humane food. It's not due to necessity but rather because it's attractive to them.

That's a city mentality.

I have never understood the superiority of buying your food over hunting your food.

Not only is fresh meat so much better than store-bought meat, it is very gratifying to actually procure your own food by hunting or pluck a chicken and cook it that night.

Post: #123

(12-22-2013 05:25 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 03:51 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 01:51 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Phil Robertson:

Pro life....except when it comes to wildlife.

Another "old fashioned" man, another hypocrite.

You're joking right? I hope you're not one of those animal rights activists.

Human life and animal life are not the same thing. We eat animals for food.
There's nothing immoral about that. Animals are on a lower level of the food chain.
We don't eat humans for food.

I'm not an activist but most people like the Robertsons and their customers hunt for fun in their honky tonk mentality, not because they have a NEED to hunt.

It's like those yuppies who are into organic/local/humane food. It's not due to necessity but rather because it's attractive to them.

I sort of disagree. Hunters have skills passed down from generations that are valuable on the whole, even if they technically don't need to hunt to eat. I would say that these days nobody really needs to hunt to eat, but it's not a bad skill to have.

Actually I know German hunters who've been hired to kill warthogs in Berlin who are tearing up the town, so many times its not just a 'hunt to eat' thing either. I think this is true in the US with deer (who are breeding like crazy and tend to tear up a lot of gardens/agricultural land esp in the Northeast).

Hunting is alpha in my book but many of the hunters I know are actually sh*t with women....

Post: #124

(12-22-2013 05:31 PM)Akula Wrote:  Actually I know German hunters who've been hired to kill warthogs in Berlin who are tearing up the town, so many times its not just a 'hunt to eat' thing either. I think this is true in the US with deer (who are breeding like crazy and tend to tear up a lot of gardens/agricultural land esp in the Northeast).

Wild hogs are a huge problem in a number of states, including Texas. This is just a sample video of people slaughtering hogs from a helicopter. This is NOT hunting. It is pest control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_...LejlibClio

Post: #125

Being a second-class citizen, and not having a choice doesn't equal happy. They weren't singing in the fields out of joy - it was their way of managing and getting through a grueling, unpleasant work. That doesn't equal happy either. Being white at that time afforded Mr. Robertson the luxury of observing things this way. Maybe it was his way of assuaging guilt, or better accepting the way blacks were treated. Or maybe it was his way of completely dismissing or minimizing what he saw, because he saw blacks as being inferior. Regardless, it rings as incredibly ignorant, or arrogant, to assume Blacks were somehow happier in a society that treated them in that fashion. Him stating he wouldn't personally mistreat a Black person doesn't say all that much, in that it's still pretty easy for whites to avoid substantive contact with people of color if they wish, and easy to turn a blind eye to someone else's mistreatment of others. It doesn't mean they see Blacks or anyone else as their equals. Plenty of people today will say they personally wouldn't say or do something racist or worse to another, yet will come on the internet and give a thumbs-up to someone else that does.

It seems to me that if Blacks had been afforded the same access to education as whites, and the same employment (that didn't involve serving whites), they could have done better by their families. That would have made them happier.