This is topic More liberal hypocrisy in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.allstocks.com/stockmessageboard/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/007185.html

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
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.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
Phil Robertson merely stated HIS beliefs...WHY is that wrong?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
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....
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
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.
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
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.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
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


 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
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.


 
Posted by NR on :
 
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.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
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?
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
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?
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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?
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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.
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
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.
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
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?
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
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...
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
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.
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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.
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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.
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
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.
 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
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.
 
Posted by NR on :
 
Are you calling me a liberal Cash? [Smile]
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
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.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
Upside is right here NR

You really need to take a look in the mirror
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
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]
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
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...
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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".
 
Posted by NR on :
 
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?".
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
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.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
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
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
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?".
So..."they" started it huh?
 
Posted by NR on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
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.

You are correct, everyone is a bigot in one way or another, even myself. I just don't believe that the 1st Amendment protects you from the consequences of being a bigot, and yet that seems to be the banner under which people are rushing to defend "Mr." Robertson.

IMO, a tolerant society is willing to entertain all "ideas" and treat them equally regardless of who presents them and how off the wall or contrary to the "norm" they may seem. HOWEVER, after careful examination, and open debate, some of those ideas should be equally rejected because they are a detriment to human society as a whole. I also believe that the ideas of some are beyond debate, because they are inherently wrong and/or violate the basic rights of others.

Does this mean we have to accept everyone and everything they do in order to be a tolerant society? I don't believe so.

Do I think religion should decide? No way, history is ripe with examples of "religious tolerance"... [Roll Eyes]

IMO, the standards must be set, (as best can be set), mostly by society as a whole, but also by a few basic truths that are self evident.

Call me intolerant, but I will not tolerate someone being sexist, racist or homophobic, and damn the consequences. IMO, behaving in such a manner violates your basic rights as a living human on the planet Earth.
 
Posted by NR on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by buckstalker:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
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?".
So..."they" started it huh?
Yup, then I shook their hand and went to work. I didn't mind being called a hippie and they didn't mind be called a redneck. The reason? Cause I act like a hippie and they act like rednecks. There was no hate or moral condemnation behind it, nor was it based on something a person has no control over, such sex or race.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
If Phil Robertson would have "slandered" someone, then I wouldn't have defended him as vehemently as I have here...but he DIDN'T...he merely stated his beliefs

That should not be a punishable offense.

Good article about the incident here...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/opinion/cupp-duck-dynasty/
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
"Call me intolerant, but I will not tolerate someone being sexist, racist or homophobic, and damn the consequences. IMO, behaving in such a manner violates your basic rights as a living human on the planet Earth."

Starting with homosexuals, we need to be tolerant of them. Where does that leave the poor bisexuals, transsexuals, polysexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, etc.? Are they taboo and a subject for our scorn or lumped under the homosexual umbrella?
 
Posted by NR on :
 
Cmon, the guy said that all the blacks he ever knew when he was young were happy under Jim Crow laws, suggested that blacks today are happy cause of entitlements and welfare, objectifies women by referring to them as a reproductive organ and said that homosexuals are offenders and sinners.

Right off the bat, I really don't understand why anyone would think that no one would find this offensive, nor do I understand why anyone should be surprised if they lost their job after making such statements, especially when said job is dependent on public opinion.

This is not a matter of 1st amendment rights. It is a matter of someone losing their job because of a few ignorant, bonehead, and (ignorantly?) bigoted statements and it happens all the time. If weren't anyone who were "famous", or a public official, you probably wouldn't have even heard about it.

If anything, people should be upset with A&E, not the LGBT crowd, since all they did was voice their opinion and maybe make a few phone calls. Someone at A&E made the decision to can him.

A&E will keep him suspended, while things cool down, (playing the entire new season of DD they just finished filming, while bringing in all the advertising money that comes with it), "Mr." Robertson, will issue a few more apologies, and they will bring DD back in a year or so once the masses have gone back to sleep.
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
NR, I actually agree with some of what you're saying. We're essentially an intolerant people and that should change a bit. But a guy that makes duck calls, celebrity or not, shouldn't raise anyone's hackles regardless of what he says or believes.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
i have to admit to complete confusion on this whole thing, including why people even care.

Conservatives say the Boss is the Boss, right? who is really being hypocritical here? I think the Boss is the Boss, and the Boss can say shave your beard and take a damn shower before you come to work too, but obviously these guys didn't get that memo [Wink]

and this guy was being featured in GQ? isn't that a men's fashion magazine or something like that?

i am sure there's a contract with specifics about who can say what, and my bet is that this is all just a big marketing gimic...

duck dyansty sales will soar over this....
 
Posted by NR on :
 
People care because they mistakenly believe that his 1st Amendment rights have somehow been violated by the evil "liberals" because he is "conservative".
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
People care because they mistakenly believe that his 1st Amendment rights have somehow been violated by the evil "liberals" because he is "conservative".

i support his right to say whatever he wants to say and not go to jail, or be fined, even tho i think he needs a shower,shave and some clothes that are not camo [Big Grin]

and A&E is exersizing their first ammendment right to share their opinion of his exersize of his rights by *suspending(?)* him if he violated a portion of his contract... his lawyers and their lawyers can both reach deep into both of hteir pockets to figure out who got screwed right?

it's not like they all aren't going to make more moeny off this brewhahaha ...

i'm more likeley to convert to Catholicism because of the new Popes great humanistic attitude than i am to spend one thin dime on any of the duck dynasty stuff they sell at walmart now.... but i wasn't going to spend any money on them before this hppened either...

i have to listen to all kinds of racist, homphobic and religous preference talk whnever i go anywhere here, (i live just a little bit north of those guys) what he said isn't something i don't hear all th time, and i don't like it, but i know i ain't going to change these guys minds...

i had to change my mind on a few of these details myslef... heck i was agaisnt gay marriage but For civil unions between anybody.. even thrreesies and fourses... marriage to memeans Church and you cannot force a Church to perform weddings... so i formwerly beleived that we as asociety should create Civil Unions for 'alternative" couplings.... but, after the Conservatives decided to ban Civil Unions? I realised that gay marraige would most likely have to Constitutionally tested, and it has been and it's winning the tests.... We are always changing the meanings of words... Gay peopel getting married doesn't hurt my marriage..... so waht the heck...

football players, baseball players all kinds of people who are under contrtact have to live by these rules, they aren't being punished if they vilolate them it's business.... you don't sign a contract you can't live with.... if A&E violated their contract by taking action? then he should be happy when his lawyer gets done reaming them... but iseriously doubt A&E would risk taking an acion like this that isn't covered under contract..

it's the same with Unions. I support their right to exist, and nogotiate, but then they have to deliver what they promise and they have to follow whtever rules are in the contract they agreed to... That's not hypocrisy, that's how the system is supposed to work....
 
Posted by T e x on :
 
Pretty simple, really

Free speech under the Constitution is totally in line with the Founding Fathers' idea to let folks speak up against or for the idea of the day. But, what they were worried about was troops coming into their homes and ****in' up ****.

You don't see that, so much, today. But, back then?
Yeah, it happened alla time.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
It's hard to feel to sorry for them at $200,000 an episode. At least that's what someone said they make.

I think i could take the heat for that price, especially since it doesn't appear to take much to do some of these reality shows, a lot of luck to get cast. Only in America.

-
 
Posted by Lockman on :
 
Mr. Robertson can say anything he wants, but A&E has the right to protect their brand.
Mr. Robertson can if he wishes go to another channel and start another TV show, which is exactly what IMUS did after being dismissed.
Fans of Mr. Robertson can protest A&E, but if A&E feels their audience doesn't want to be associated with his views they have every right to fire him,
A&E will have to deal with their decision as well, I believe they are in the business of attracting viewers.
 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
Are you calling me a liberal Cash? [Smile]

No, you are a free thinker!
 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
How many of you subscribe to GQ magazine? I bet glass does.
 
Posted by T e x on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
People care because they mistakenly believe that his 1st Amendment rights have somehow been violated by the evil "liberals" because he is "conservative".

i support his right to say whatever he wants to say and not go to jail, or be fined, even tho i think he needs a shower,shave and some clothes that are not camo [Big Grin]

and A&E is exersizing their first ammendment right to share their opinion of his exersize of his rights by *suspending(?)* him if he violated a portion of his contract... his lawyers and their lawyers can both reach deep into both of hteir pockets to figure out who got screwed right?

it's not like they all aren't going to make more moeny off this brewhahaha ...

i'm more likeley to convert to Catholicism because of the new Popes great humanistic attitude than i am to spend one thin dime on any of the duck dynasty stuff they sell at walmart now.... but i wasn't going to spend any money on them before this hppened either...

i have to listen to all kinds of racist, homphobic and religous preference talk whnever i go anywhere here, (i live just a little bit north of those guys) what he said isn't something i don't hear all th time, and i don't like it, but i know i ain't going to change these guys minds...

i had to change my mind on a few of these details myslef... heck i was agaisnt gay marriage but For civil unions between anybody.. even thrreesies and fourses... marriage to memeans Church and you cannot force a Church to perform weddings... so i formwerly beleived that we as asociety should create Civil Unions for 'alternative" couplings.... but, after the Conservatives decided to ban Civil Unions? I realised that gay marraige would most likely have to Constitutionally tested, and it has been and it's winning the tests.... We are always changing the meanings of words... Gay peopel getting married doesn't hurt my marriage..... so waht the heck...

football players, baseball players all kinds of people who are under contrtact have to live by these rules, they aren't being punished if they vilolate them it's business.... you don't sign a contract you can't live with.... if A&E violated their contract by taking action? then he should be happy when his lawyer gets done reaming them... but iseriously doubt A&E would risk taking an acion like this that isn't covered under contract..

it's the same with Unions. I support their right to exist, and nogotiate, but then they have to deliver what they promise and they have to follow whtever rules are in the contract they agreed to... That's not hypocrisy, that's how the system is supposed to work....

Glassy Eyed Bozo,

No one spells worse than you do.

And that's going some.

Do you actually try to spell poorly?

Merry Christmas, everybody ;-)
 
Posted by T e x on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
How many of you subscribe to GQ magazine? I bet glass does.

Bet you $100 he doesn't. Truthfully, I don't know. And I'm sure he would tell the truth, knowing of this bet.

Still wanna bet?
 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by T e x:
quote:
Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
How many of you subscribe to GQ magazine? I bet glass does.

Bet you $100 he doesn't. Truthfully, I don't know. And I'm sure he would tell the truth, knowing of this bet.

Still wanna bet?

Lol no I was just joking.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by T e x:
Glassy Eyed Bozo,

No one spells worse than you do.

And that's going some.

Do you actually try to spell poorly?

Merry Christmas, everybody ;-)

mettry Christmes to you too Tex,
its just that my keyboard is all messed up...
 -
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
I've never even looked inside a GQ.... i guess i've seen them somewhere before, but i have never opened one up.
 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
I have always been offended by rays hetero-phobic remarks. Should he lose his job too?
 
Posted by T e x on :
 
Your keyboard is melted from the heat.

Ho ho ho, y'all...
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
What does GQ stand for anyway? Gays and Queers? Galavanting Queens? Anyone?
 
Posted by Pagan on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
What does GQ stand for anyway? Gays and Queers? Galavanting Queens? Anyone?

Hopefully you are just joking. Gentlemans Quarterly. It's hard to tell if your joking with the idiots that post here though.
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
Just trying to get a rise out of NR.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
OK so i fianlly opened up GQ's website and it wasn't waht i thought it was...

i found this image without having to look too long;

 -

i guess it's shoe ad?

anyway, i have now looked at GQ online... i am mostly a jeans and leathers person... i have one suit which is tailored and i wear it once or twice a year, on the other hand i have several pairs o leather pants and two leather jackets and one leather coat... i wear them when it's cold out, which is more often than it should be lately....
 
Posted by NR on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
Just trying to get a rise out of NR.

Eh, I'm done flogging that horse...

I got more of a rise out of your profile picture anyway. Nice dress.
 
Posted by NR on :
 
Here is the original article that started it all:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

BTW, A&E is so upset with "Mr." Robertson that they are running a 25 episode marathon of DD tomorrow. Good to know that they stand behind their convictions. [Roll Eyes]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ae-airing-duck-dynasty-marathon-on-christmas/

P.S, don't forget to download the DD app for your iPhone.

"As you play, your character will go from a Bluetooth-earpiece-wearing, clean-shaven businessman, to a fully camouflaged, long-haired, bandana-wearing redneck with a beard that would even make Phil jealous."

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/duck-dynasty-battle-beards/id723879768?mt=8
 
Posted by NR on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
OK so i fianlly opened up GQ's website and it wasn't waht i thought it was...

i found this image without having to look too long;

 -

i guess it's shoe ad?

anyway, i have now looked at GQ online... i am mostly a jeans and leathers person... i have one suit which is tailored and i wear it once or twice a year, on the other hand i have several pairs o leather pants and two leather jackets and one leather coat... i wear them when it's cold out, which is more often than it should be lately....

"All the other kids with the pumped up kicks"?

It's like watching any commercial these days... What you see usually has absolutely NOTHING to do with the product being advertised.
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
Just trying to get a rise out of NR.

Eh, I'm done flogging that horse...

I got more of a rise out of your profile picture anyway. Nice dress.

LOL, I forgot all about that! Call me intolerant will ya, look at the clothes I go fishing in! Got quite a few raised eyebrows with that one.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
an no stockings, you really should be ashamed
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
There's actually 4 or 5 different ones, the intent was to look as slovenly as possible. I'll have to see if I can find any of the others and change the profile pic.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
this would look great onya!

 -
it's a van gogh print which gives it that crazy absinthe addiction edge...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINCENT-VAN-GOGH-Fishing-Boat-River-Fish-FINE-ART-PRINT- DRESS-SHIRT-PAINTING/271354649285?_trksid=p2047675.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222002% 26algo%3DSIC.FIT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D11%26meid%3D3679606438334669121%26pid%3D100011 %26prg%3D1005%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D5%26sd%3D301046722492%26
 
Posted by NR on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
Just trying to get a rise out of NR.

Eh, I'm done flogging that horse...

I got more of a rise out of your profile picture anyway. Nice dress.

LOL, I forgot all about that! Call me intolerant will ya, look at the clothes I go fishing in! Got quite a few raised eyebrows with that one.
Did you lose a fishing bet or something?
 
Posted by NR on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
an no stockings, you really should be ashamed

Hahah... Scandalous.
 
Posted by Upside on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
Just trying to get a rise out of NR.

Eh, I'm done flogging that horse...

I got more of a rise out of your profile picture anyway. Nice dress.

LOL, I forgot all about that! Call me intolerant will ya, look at the clothes I go fishing in! Got quite a few raised eyebrows with that one.
Did you lose a fishing bet or something?
Kind of a long story but no, it wasn't a lost bet. A few years back I formed a fishing lure company, mainly producing large musky lures. We named one of our first lures the Call Girl, it's about 10" long and weighs about 6 ounces. It requires a huge package and one of our marketing schemes was to have a scantily clad woman printed on the package but mostly covered by the lure. You couldn't actually see the picture until you had purchased the lure and removed it from the blister pack.

Then I got the brainstorm that maybe one out of 100 or so lures would feature me in a dress holding a fish and looking like a sack of chit, I'd be the Call Girl. If you wound up with one of those it could be redeemed for a bunch of free lures. I went as far as having my wife photograph me with a few different fish species in a few different "outfits" but in the end I couldn't pull the trigger and actually do it so I scrapped the idea. I did have a sample package produced with me on it just to see how it would look, that's what really made me nix it. I think I have a scan of it on my home computer, if so I'll post it over the weekend. I think you'll agree that I made the right decision.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
in th e story i heard- he won that bet....
 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
Just trying to get a rise out of NR.

Eh, I'm done flogging that horse...

I got more of a rise out of your profile picture anyway. Nice dress.

LOL, I forgot all about that! Call me intolerant will ya, look at the clothes I go fishing in! Got quite a few raised eyebrows with that one.
Did you lose a fishing bet or something?
Kind of a long story but no, it wasn't a lost bet. A few years back I formed a fishing lure company, mainly producing large musky lures. We named one of our first lures the Call Girl, it's about 10" long and weighs about 6 ounces. It requires a huge package and one of our marketing schemes was to have a scantily clad woman printed on the package but mostly covered by the lure. You couldn't actually see the picture until you had purchased the lure and removed it from the blister pack.

Then I got the brainstorm that maybe one out of 100 or so lures would feature me in a dress holding a fish and looking like a sack of chit, I'd be the Call Girl. If you wound up with one of those it could be redeemed for a bunch of free lures. I went as far as having my wife photograph me with a few different fish species in a few different "outfits" but in the end I couldn't pull the trigger and actually do it so I scrapped the idea. I did have a sample package produced with me on it just to see how it would look, that's what really made me nix it. I think I have a scan of it on my home computer, if so I'll post it over the weekend. I think you'll agree that I made the right decision.

That sounds pretty awesome. Too bad it didnt take off.
 
Posted by NR on :
 
Duck Dynasty, still going strong.

"'Duck Dynasty' producers make show about Chester fishing brothers"

http://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/duck-dynasty-producers-make-show-about-ches ter-fishing-brothers/article_c9268323-15f4-588d-813e-76e695be2dcd.html


Did you ever find those other pictures Upside? I've been waiting for months to see them....
 


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

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2