Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » More liberal hypocrisy (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: More liberal hypocrisy
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Duck Dynasty is being smeared by LGBT folks because of someones opinion. Phil is taken off the show and all this drama queen nonsense is going on.


You know, for people who scream tolerance of others or to accept people for being different they are setting a terrible example of how we treat others who believe different things.

Talk about bullies.

--------------------
It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.

Posts: 6946 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
buckstalker
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for buckstalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Phil Robertson merely stated HIS beliefs...WHY is that wrong?
Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i don't watch the show because i can just go out into the neighborhood and guys like him and the rest of the cast are my neighbors [Big Grin] i watch TV see stuff that i can't see or in my and the neighbors backyard

he prolly didn't realise that the guys signing his paycheck and running the cameras and the editors and the marketing department are all gay....

since he isn't a member of protected class (i.e. he's white hetero guy) he has no recourse.

he may get more famous for dong this and getting fired or suspended or whatever they did.....

all know is that i see their tee shirts everywhere down here and i have to wonder what these guys actaully did to get famous....

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A racist, homophobic, chauvinist redneck?! Shocking... [Roll Eyes]

Sure, he has the right to free speech and all... but so did Don Imus.

By the way, since you are so fond of spreading the word of Jesus, "Mr." Robertson; John 8:7 or perhaps Mathew 7:1-3

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Upside
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Upside     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, he doesn't have the right to free speech, just look at the aftermath of him exercising his "right".

If instead he'd have come out in favor of railing a chicken or something our society would embrace him. He'd be lauded as compassionate, accepting and a role model for generations to come.

Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Phil Robertson has the right to free speech and he exercised it period. I don't like it and neither did his employer.

And that is where his fight lies with his employer, not the government. As far as I am concerned he has just entered the court system and all the money grabbing attorneys that want to represent him will flock to him.


Now I will exercise my free speech Mr. Robertson take a bath and wash your mouth out with soap. Go to church and ask your pastor what the real message of Christ is and the meaning of grace. And as Christians how we should treat the disadvantaged.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3767 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
buckstalker
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for buckstalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NR...you should be reprimanded and kicked off this site for making those prejudicial comments about another individual...

Please explain to me why YOU have the freedom to (call it as you see it), but someone that believes something other than what you believe, isn't afforded that same freedom?

Is it because your beliefs are RIGHT and anyone that doesn't believe in your beliefs are WRONG?

How SPECIAL it must be to be YOU!!!

You really need to learn to "practice what you preach"...

quote:
Originally posted by NR:
A racist, homophobic, chauvinist redneck?! Shocking... [Roll Eyes]

Sure, he has the right to free speech and all... but so did Don Imus.

By the way, since you are so fond of spreading the word of Jesus, "Mr." Robertson; John 8:7 or perhaps Mathew 7:1-3



--------------------
***********************

It's all in the timing...

Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
buckstalker
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for buckstalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No Ray...he has NOT been afforded the "right" to free speech...

Being PUNISHED for voicing your opinion, does not constitute "free speech"...

quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
Phil Robertson has the right to free speech and he exercised it period. I don't like it and neither did his employer.

And that is where his fight lies with his employer, not the government. As far as I am concerned he has just entered the court system and all the money grabbing attorneys that want to represent him will flock to him.


Now I will exercise my free speech Mr. Robertson take a bath and wash your mouth out with soap. Go to church and ask your pastor what the real message of Christ is and the meaning of grace. And as Christians how we should treat the disadvantaged.



--------------------
***********************

It's all in the timing...

Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by buckstalker:
NR...you should be reprimanded and kicked off this site for making those prejudicial comments about another individual...

Please explain to me why YOU have the freedom to (call it as you see it), but someone that believes something other than what you believe, isn't afforded that same freedom?

Is it because your beliefs are RIGHT and anyone that doesn't believe in your beliefs are WRONG?

How SPECIAL it must be to be YOU!!!

You really need to learn to "practice what you preach"...

quote:
Originally posted by NR:
A racist, homophobic, chauvinist redneck?! Shocking... [Roll Eyes]

Sure, he has the right to free speech and all... but so did Don Imus.

By the way, since you are so fond of spreading the word of Jesus, "Mr." Robertson; John 8:7 or perhaps Mathew 7:1-3


So I should be silenced and banned from this site because of what I said?

quote:
Originally posted by buckstalker:


Being PUNISHED for voicing your opinion, does not constitute "free speech"...

If being banned from Allstocks is the consequence for my statements, then so be it, but at least I am willing to accept those consequences, unlike "Mr." Robertson, or those who are choosing to "stand behind" this bigot.

I never said that "Mr." Robertson should'nt be allowed to say what he wants about "vaginas", "homosexuals offenders", and "pre-entitlement blacks". I simply called him a racist, homophobic, chauvinist redneck because that is how I perceive him based on his own words.

As far as practicing what I preach? I'm agnostic, so I don't preach anything. I just like to remind the "holier than thou" finger pointers a few versus they seem to forget from time to time.

Here is something else people tend to forget from time to time. The text of the 1st amendment they like to hide behind when they realized they just pissed off a bunch of people with what they just said.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Study that for a while, and get back to me when you figure out what part of the 1st Amendment is being violated when "Mr." Robertson was "indefinitely" suspended from his non-government job as a result of his bigotry.

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
buckstalker
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for buckstalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NR...you are joking RIGHT?

You really don't see the hypocricy in your statements?

You stated that you believe that "Mr Robertson" is being rightly punished for something he stated he believes...but it would be unfair for you to be punished for stating YOUR beliefs...

Is that right or am I missing something

What if his statements were:

There is no god...

I think blacks are still being mistreated by whites...

or, I embrace homosexuality...

Should he still be punished for making those statements?

--------------------
***********************

It's all in the timing...

Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
No, he doesn't have the right to free speech, just look at the aftermath of him exercising his "right".

If instead he'd have come out in favor of railing a chicken or something our society would embrace him. He'd be lauded as compassionate, accepting and a role model for generations to come.

I for one, am glad that it appears a majority of our society has chosen not to "embrace" "Mr." Robertson, and his bigotry.

"Mr." Robertson claims he is "a product of the 60's", and it shows.

These days, most people would agree that women should not be objectified as a reproductive organ, blacks were mistreated and discriminated against in the 60's and many states now allow homosexuals to get married. It's called tolerance and it's obvious that "Mr." Robertson doesn't have any... but that is his right I suppose...

IMO, he should step out of the swampy backwoods and join the 21st century, or get used to the backlash from his backwards way of thinking.

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
buckstalker
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for buckstalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
No, he doesn't have the right to free speech, just look at the aftermath of him exercising his "right".

If instead he'd have come out in favor of railing a chicken or something our society would embrace him. He'd be lauded as compassionate, accepting and a role model for generations to come.

I for one, am glad that it appears a majority of our society has chosen not to "embrace" "Mr." Robertson, and his bigotry.

"Mr." Robertson claims he is "a product of the 60's", and it shows.

These days, most people would agree that women should not be objectified as a reproductive organ, blacks were mistreated and discriminated against in the 60's and many states now allow homosexuals to get married. It's called tolerance and it's obvious that "Mr." Robertson doesn't have any... but that is his right I suppose...

IMO, he should step out of the swampy backwoods and join the 21st century, or get used to the backlash from his backwards way of thinking.

So in other words...

You are right
He is wrong
You are tolerant
He is not
He deserves to be punished for stating his beliefs
You should not be punished for stating yours

Is that about right?

--------------------
***********************

It's all in the timing...

Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by buckstalker:
NR...you are joking RIGHT?

You really don't see the hypocricy in your statements?

You stated that you believe that "Mr Robertson" is being rightly punished for something he stated he believes...but it would be unfair for you to be punished for stating YOUR beliefs...

Is that right or am I missing something

What if his statements were:

There is no god...

I think blacks are still being mistreated by whites...

or, I embrace homosexuality...

Should he still be punished for making those statements?

You were the one suggesting that I be banned from Allstocks because of what I said under your own "definition" of the 1st Amendment.

I never said he was being "rightly punished", I just said there are consequences to the things we choose to say and I happen to believe what he said was wrong.

If he had chosen to say there is no god? That is his right, I have no opinion either way.

Agnostic:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

I am just trying to point out two things:

#1, "Mr." Robertson is a bigot, and not someone I would want to "stand behind";

#2, The 1st Amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of being a bigot in front of a large crowd.

How are those lawsuits for violation of 1st Amendment rights going for Don Imus and Paula Dean by the way?

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by buckstalker:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
No, he doesn't have the right to free speech, just look at the aftermath of him exercising his "right".

If instead he'd have come out in favor of railing a chicken or something our society would embrace him. He'd be lauded as compassionate, accepting and a role model for generations to come.

I for one, am glad that it appears a majority of our society has chosen not to "embrace" "Mr." Robertson, and his bigotry.

"Mr." Robertson claims he is "a product of the 60's", and it shows.

These days, most people would agree that women should not be objectified as a reproductive organ, blacks were mistreated and discriminated against in the 60's and many states now allow homosexuals to get married. It's called tolerance and it's obvious that "Mr." Robertson doesn't have any... but that is his right I suppose...

IMO, he should step out of the swampy backwoods and join the 21st century, or get used to the backlash from his backwards way of thinking.

So in other words...

You are right
He is wrong
You are tolerant
He is not
He deserves to be punished for stating his beliefs
You should not be punished for stating yours

Is that about right?

The first two? Yes.
The last one? No.

"Mr." Robertson and I can say whatever we want, but there will be consequences, good or bad, and the 1st Amendment does nothing regarding those consequences unless congress chooses to pass some sort of law about it as a result.

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
your wrong buck his employer has the right to fire him. And Phil has the right to say anything about that. What you have here is a civil case not criminal. Unless you can find a proceedings to the contrary.

I would have been fired from my job if I would have said any thing like that on or off the clock.

This case is a good example of being aloud to say what you want and insult people and do a terrible job of representing you employer. This is exactly why we have civil law and I hope there are parties that want to proceed. I feel there is no difference between this and Martin Bashier on msnbc who had to resign for saying somebody should urinate on Sara Palin. In this case I agree but he had to go.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3767 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
your wrong buck his employer has the right to fire him. And Phil has the right to say anything about that. What you have here is a civil case not criminal. Unless you can find a proceedings to the contrary.

I would have been fired from my job if I would have said any thing like that on or off the clock.

Exactly Ray. In fact, his employer had previously warned him not to make such comments, (which "Mr." Robertson had apparently been chomping at the bit to say on "his" show for some time), and instead, he went to GQ magazine to make his voice heard.

No one here knows the terms of his contract, and there could very well be something in the contract against this sort of behavior, so he may not even have a civil case. Also, considering he is in "show business", I find it highly unlikely that there isn't something in his contract regarding being a bigot as well, (FCC and all), but this is all merely speculation on my part.

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
buckstalker
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for buckstalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ray...

If his employer has a right to fire him for stating his beliefs...then free speech doesn't exist...get it?

NR

I am going to simplify this for you

First off...I am not defending Robertsons beliefs or arguing with yours

Mr Robertson believes that homosexuality is a sin and you believe it is not...the fact is that neither one of you can PROVE that your "belief" is right...

Why then do you believe that he should be punished for stating his beliefs...but you should not?

And yes...you do "preach" tolerance...yet you don't practice it...

--------------------
***********************

It's all in the timing...

Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Upside
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Upside     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
No, he doesn't have the right to free speech, just look at the aftermath of him exercising his "right".

If instead he'd have come out in favor of railing a chicken or something our society would embrace him. He'd be lauded as compassionate, accepting and a role model for generations to come.

I for one, am glad that it appears a majority of our society has chosen not to "embrace" "Mr." Robertson, and his bigotry.

"Mr." Robertson claims he is "a product of the 60's", and it shows.

These days, most people would agree that women should not be objectified as a reproductive organ, blacks were mistreated and discriminated against in the 60's and many states now allow homosexuals to get married. It's called tolerance and it's obvious that "Mr." Robertson doesn't have any... but that is his right I suppose...

IMO, he should step out of the swampy backwoods and join the 21st century, or get used to the backlash from his backwards way of thinking.

Definition of bigotry:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

Isn't that exactly what you're practicing with your views of him? The tolerance and acceptance you aspire to isn't limited to just the segments of society that you favor, it's a much broader brush stroke than that. It covers all of society and like it or not, a large segment of society shares the same views as Mr. Robertson. If you truly want to practice the tolerance that you speak of, don't you by definition have to be equally tolerant and accepting of his viewpoints?

Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
buckstalker
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for buckstalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
No, he doesn't have the right to free speech, just look at the aftermath of him exercising his "right".

If instead he'd have come out in favor of railing a chicken or something our society would embrace him. He'd be lauded as compassionate, accepting and a role model for generations to come.

I for one, am glad that it appears a majority of our society has chosen not to "embrace" "Mr." Robertson, and his bigotry.

"Mr." Robertson claims he is "a product of the 60's", and it shows.

These days, most people would agree that women should not be objectified as a reproductive organ, blacks were mistreated and discriminated against in the 60's and many states now allow homosexuals to get married. It's called tolerance and it's obvious that "Mr." Robertson doesn't have any... but that is his right I suppose...

IMO, he should step out of the swampy backwoods and join the 21st century, or get used to the backlash from his backwards way of thinking.

Definition of bigotry:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

Isn't that exactly what you're practicing with your views of him? The tolerance and acceptance you aspire to isn't limited to just the segments of society that you favor, it's a much broader brush stroke than that. It covers all of society and like it or not, a large segment of society shares the same views as Mr. Robertson. If you truly want to practice the tolerance that you speak of, don't you by definition have to be equally tolerant and accepting of his viewpoints?

BINGO...

--------------------
***********************

It's all in the timing...

Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Buck being a Christian I to believe homosexuality is a sin before god but Christ said hate the sin not the person. I don't believe it is against the law.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3767 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Buck,

You need to examine your definition of "free speech" and compare that to what is actually stated in the 1st Amendment.

I do agree, I cannot prove my belief is right because then I would have to accept that God exists in order to decide if homosexuality is a "sin"or not.

Again, I never said he should be punished for stating his beliefs, just that there are always consequences to what you say. I also never suggested that I should somehow be exempt from said consequences, merely that I was willing to accept them, whatever they may be. Something which "Mr." Robertson, and those taking up his banner are not.

As far as me being intolerant? I suppose in the limited context of this conversation, it may appear to be so, however, were you to truly know me as a person, or knew anything about the life I had as a child, you would probably think otherwise.

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
No, he doesn't have the right to free speech, just look at the aftermath of him exercising his "right".

If instead he'd have come out in favor of railing a chicken or something our society would embrace him. He'd be lauded as compassionate, accepting and a role model for generations to come.

I for one, am glad that it appears a majority of our society has chosen not to "embrace" "Mr." Robertson, and his bigotry.

"Mr." Robertson claims he is "a product of the 60's", and it shows.

These days, most people would agree that women should not be objectified as a reproductive organ, blacks were mistreated and discriminated against in the 60's and many states now allow homosexuals to get married. It's called tolerance and it's obvious that "Mr." Robertson doesn't have any... but that is his right I suppose...

IMO, he should step out of the swampy backwoods and join the 21st century, or get used to the backlash from his backwards way of thinking.

Definition of bigotry:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

Isn't that exactly what you're practicing with your views of him? The tolerance and acceptance you aspire to isn't limited to just the segments of society that you favor, it's a much broader brush stroke than that. It covers all of society and like it or not, a large segment of society shares the same views as Mr. Robertson. If you truly want to practice the tolerance that you speak of, don't you by definition have to be equally tolerant and accepting of his viewpoints?

I am tolerant of his point of view. He said it, and I disagree. I have never once stated that he shouldn't have been allowed to say it or believe it in the first place. Stop putting words in my mouth. Being tolerant does not require that I agree with the person who is voicing their opinion.

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Buck also your employer has the right to ask you to represent him in good taste and I heard that Phil was warned about this and laughed it off 2 times before.

Sounds like this is one for the Courts to me . Nobody has been accused of a crime here.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3767 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just goes to show how ugly and intolerant liberals are. They get so nasty towards anyone who does not agree with their closed minds.

I dont care if you are gay and get married and adopt a child. Good for you. Just stop getting in my face about it. Seriously, you cant even have a manger with Jesus in it anymore in this country without someone getting "offended" and having the ACLU called on you. Yet, gay parade floats with sexual behaviors riding down the parade route is ok and not offensive to anyone.

This is why I wont ever be a liberal. One word, hypocrisy.

--------------------
It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.

Posts: 6946 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you calling me a liberal Cash? [Smile]

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Upside
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Upside     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
No, he doesn't have the right to free speech, just look at the aftermath of him exercising his "right".

If instead he'd have come out in favor of railing a chicken or something our society would embrace him. He'd be lauded as compassionate, accepting and a role model for generations to come.

I for one, am glad that it appears a majority of our society has chosen not to "embrace" "Mr." Robertson, and his bigotry.

"Mr." Robertson claims he is "a product of the 60's", and it shows.

These days, most people would agree that women should not be objectified as a reproductive organ, blacks were mistreated and discriminated against in the 60's and many states now allow homosexuals to get married. It's called tolerance and it's obvious that "Mr." Robertson doesn't have any... but that is his right I suppose...

IMO, he should step out of the swampy backwoods and join the 21st century, or get used to the backlash from his backwards way of thinking.

Definition of bigotry:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

Isn't that exactly what you're practicing with your views of him? The tolerance and acceptance you aspire to isn't limited to just the segments of society that you favor, it's a much broader brush stroke than that. It covers all of society and like it or not, a large segment of society shares the same views as Mr. Robertson. If you truly want to practice the tolerance that you speak of, don't you by definition have to be equally tolerant and accepting of his viewpoints?

I am tolerant of his point of view. He said it, and I disagree. I have never once stated that he shouldn't have been allowed to say it or believe it in the first place. Stop putting words in my mouth. Being tolerant does not require that I agree with the person who is voicing their opinion.
And it doesn't allow for language such as "A racist, homophobic, chauvinist redneck?!" no more than if I were to refer to a gay guy as a fag.

That's not putting words in your mouth. That's the mean-spirited, hateful manner in which you chose to describe him.

Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
buckstalker
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for buckstalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Upside is right here NR

You really need to take a look in the mirror

--------------------
***********************

It's all in the timing...

Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He is racist, homophobic and chauvinist. He described himself as such by his own words.

Redneck? Ok, that was probably inappropriate but most "rednecks" I've met don't find that name offensive and often wear it with pride.

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Upside
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Upside     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
He is racist, homophobic and chauvinist. He described himself as such by his own words.

Redneck? Ok, that was probably inappropriate but most "rednecks" I've met don't find that name offensive and often wear it with pride.

There you go with the sterotypes again. [Big Grin]
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
He is racist, homophobic and chauvinist. He described himself as such by his own words.

Redneck? Ok, that was probably inappropriate but most "rednecks" I've met don't find that name offensive and often wear it with pride.

There you go with the sterotypes again. [Big Grin]
I dunno, maybe so. I did a ton of survey work for lots of country folk in West Virginia, and nobody there seemed to mind being called a "redneck" by a "hippie" from California.

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
buckstalker
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for buckstalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
He is racist, homophobic and chauvinist. He described himself as such by his own words.

Redneck? Ok, that was probably inappropriate but most "rednecks" I've met don't find that name offensive and often wear it with pride.

There you go with the sterotypes again. [Big Grin]
I dunno, maybe so. I did a ton of survey work for lots of country folk in West Virginia, and nobody there seemed to mind being called a "redneck" by a "hippie" from California.
Thats probably because they have learned to be "tolerant" of others...

--------------------
***********************

It's all in the timing...

Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, the words; racist, homophobic and chauvinist are legitimate words used to describe someone who is intolerant of someone else's race, sexual orientation, and gender. They are not at all hateful slurs like the word "fag".

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by buckstalker:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
He is racist, homophobic and chauvinist. He described himself as such by his own words.

Redneck? Ok, that was probably inappropriate but most "rednecks" I've met don't find that name offensive and often wear it with pride.

There you go with the sterotypes again. [Big Grin]
I dunno, maybe so. I did a ton of survey work for lots of country folk in West Virginia, and nobody there seemed to mind being called a "redneck" by a "hippie" from California.
Thats probably because they have learned to be "tolerant" of others...
Except, most often than not, I was called a "hippie" first, when they realized I wasn't from "'round here", and asked where I was from, along with the question, "Isn't California gonna break off as an island from all the earthquakes?".

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Upside
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Upside     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
He is racist, homophobic and chauvinist. He described himself as such by his own words.

Redneck? Ok, that was probably inappropriate but most "rednecks" I've met don't find that name offensive and often wear it with pride.

There you go with the sterotypes again. [Big Grin]
I dunno, maybe so. I did a ton of survey work for lots of country folk in West Virginia, and nobody there seemed to mind being called a "redneck" by a "hippie" from California.
Just a joke. The only reason I'm in this discussion is to point out what I personally see as fallacies of the whole universal acceptance thing. Bigotry to one degree or another is part of our make up and it's not necessarily a bad thing. It keeps truly abhorrent things in check and it inspires lively debate on chat boards.

One of my concerns though is where is the line drawn and who draws that line. Does an all accepting society have to be just that, all accepting? Would a group of pedophiles be allowed to become a part of mainstream society? Don't chuckle and say "of course not", it may be sick and twisted to you and me but there's a lot of them out there. Do we have to accept them as normal behaving people too?

In an all accepting society who sets the standards? Someone has to or we'll devolve back into savages.

Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
buckstalker
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for buckstalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
By the way, the words; racist, homophobic and chauvinist are legitimate words used to describe someone who is intolerant of someone else's race, sexual orientation, and gender. They are not at all hateful slurs like the word "fag".

LMAO...You just DON'T get it...do you?

Your words are legitimate...
Others words are hateful slurs...

Again...it must be special to be you

--------------------
***********************

It's all in the timing...

Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2013 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share