It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: The Latest Victim of the PC Police

page: 24
78
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

SWCCFAN
I support what Phil Robertson said and I agree with him. If that is now labeled as hate speech so be it. If you don't like it you can go pout about it. Just bear in mind that there are country's that actually imprison and even kill people for acts of immorality. We can agree to disagree but calling an opinion of an individual hate speech crosses the line.

The first Amendment gives us the right to share our opinions even if its not popular we should respect the right to do so. If we bend on that we are no longer free...


So you believe that the blacks were happier under Jim Crow laws?




posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

calstorm

So you believe that the blacks were happier under Jim Crow laws?


Jim Crow (A Democrat policy) is not causation of this perceived 'being happier'.

That era occurred before Democrats "War On Poverty" which destroyed more black families and created more black poverty in all of American history.

He never suggested Jim Crow = Happier, it was a description of a time period; an era.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

calstorm
So you believe that the blacks were happier under Jim Crow laws?


Can you please find me the quote where Phil said that?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

calstorm

SWCCFAN
I support what Phil Robertson said and I agree with him. If that is now labeled as hate speech so be it. If you don't like it you can go pout about it. Just bear in mind that there are country's that actually imprison and even kill people for acts of immorality. We can agree to disagree but calling an opinion of an individual hate speech crosses the line.

The first Amendment gives us the right to share our opinions even if its not popular we should respect the right to do so. If we bend on that we are no longer free...


So you believe that the blacks were happier under Jim Crow laws?


Let's not put words into anyone's mouths. Phil said NOTHING about Jim Crow laws, but statistically at THAT TIME the black family was strong, out of wedlock pregnancy was lower in the black community than any other community, and violent crime was much lower. Oh, and they had JOBS in Detroit! It's amazing that you let a bunch of liberals take over a city, make it worthwhile to kick the father out of the home so women qualify for welfare, and you get the cesspool we call the inner city today.

Yes, overall, the black family was happier and stronger during the time NOTE I said TIME of the Jim Crow laws. Naturally, the laws needed to be changed, but we did not need to destroy the American family to do it!



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
seems the court case that will set the precedent(possibly) will be the case of craig james sueing for getting fired from fox for pretty much the same thing
from a variety of sources
www.charismanews.com...


Craig James, who was fired by Fox Sports Southwest (FSSW) over his biblical beliefs on homosexuality, is taking the company to court concerning his termination. Liberty Institute sent a letter to Fox Sports officials last week on James’ behalf, demanding his immediate reinstatement. The letter was ignored, so a lawsuit was filed in Collin County, northeast of Dallas. The former Southern Methodist University and NFL player was dismissed by Fox Sports after just one day on the air. FSSW General Manager Jon Heidtke called James on Sept. 1 to inform him he had been fired. According to Breitbart News, Heidtke—who also hired James—said a higher-up in the network had been made aware of James' comments about same-sex marriage during his unsuccessful 2012 run for the Senate. “At Fox Sports we respect all points of view, and despite reports to the contrary, the decision to no longer use Craig James in our college football coverage was simply because he was not a good fit for Fox Sports,” reads a statement from last week regarding James’ dismissal.


profootballtalk.nbcsports.com... from NBC news

sports.yahoo.com... from Yahoo news. so if he wins his case in court A and E just set them selves up for liability for comparable charges

www.huffingtonpost.com... from huff post



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

calstorm
This is nothing more than a ratings ploy! The Religious have come out in their support for this show in droves, from what I have seen based on my town and comments I have seen on various articles. I have heard at least a handful of people who have said they never watched the show, but plan to now as a show of support.

It reminds of of when people flocked to Chick Fillet because of their anti-gay stance.


I never had Chik Filet, but now it's one of my favorite joints!

I never watched Duck Dynasty, but now it may become one of my favorite shows!

So sick and tired of this PC BS! What ever happened to people's right to express their own beliefs?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

calstorm
I can support his right to freedom of speech, but I also have the right not to support someone who thinks anyone was was better off under Jim Crow laws.

Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow.

tv.yahoo.com... tml



You can boycott A&E then before Phil made his comments, but them suspending Phil is outrageous! This hypocritical attitude in media is what is causing this backlash. We have liberals saying vile things about conservatives and it's all laughed off, but let one conservative speak their views and they get canned!

This will ultimately backfire on you minority liberals who think you are in the majority because your views are spread far and wide in major media, but the truth is, the silent majority are getting tired of it, and one day the pendulum will swing and it won't be pretty.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


he did not say that the person who wrote the article did quit quoting the man out of context. it was brought up in what it think was your thread and you ignored it there. www.abovetopsecret.com... if not the your thread you can find it at the above link
edit on 19-12-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

burdman30ott6

bigfatfurrytexan
Two adult humans doing what they want to do to each other is none of your business. All the Slippery Slope Fallacies in the world will not overcome that.


Playing devil's advocate here...
Prostitution is illegal on the state level in 49 of the 50 states. Numerous substances are federally illegal for adults to partake in. If two men decide to fist fight each other, they will be arrested, even though it was a mutually acceptable fight for both of them.


I am well established on this site for being pro legalization of both all forms of drugs and prostitution. I want morons circling the drain to get down the drain quicker....and that seems like a fair way to help them along.

Regarding fist fighting....i think it is wrong to arrest them for that. The government and their monopoly on violence is just as disgusting to me as any other legal overstep in our great nation. We have to get over this idea that it is our governments job to save us from ourselves. It isn't.



The "two consenting adults" argument is convenient for the US to apply to social issues like homosexuality, but it blows up in the face of the law when used on most everything else.

Here's one that scarcely anyone can wrap their heads around... until the late 70's, the American Medical Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. That wouldn't really be all that big of a deal, if only the powers that be wouldn't still use the AMA's decisions on things in this modern era. "We were wrong before we were right and you can have full trust in all our decisions now. Just do as we say!"

The one thing that HAS NOT changed over the centuries is the context of the Bible that Phil uses to guide his life. Wishy-Washy, ever changing societal norms be damned, at least liturgically devout Christians are consistant as a Swiss watch.


I support Phil 100% in this, if it were a real scenario not concocted in a producers meeting at A&E.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

TownCryer
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


Homesexuallity is generally accepted, in most parts of the world. It IS a sexual prefference.


It wasn't always, so how long until bestiality, incest and paedophilia also become "generally accepted"?

After all, they are simply "sexual -preferences" right?

And isn't "sexual -preference" the point? Remember, homosexuals are just born that way, so why should they be penalised (so to speak...) simply for their Sexual Preference?


This quote made me come out of exile...
Comparing homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia...both of which are sex acts against the will of their victims, in other words rape...wow.
Must be Australian. Or Russian.
Had to assess...for one with so many obvious nods to "libertarianism" in your avatar and such, you sure have a penchant for telling people what is the acceptable consentual sexual preference in their homes...
edit on 19-12-2013 by the owlbear because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

bbracken677

bigfatfurrytexan

TheWrightWing

TownCryer
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


Homesexuallity is generally accepted, in most parts of the world. It IS a sexual prefference.


It wasn't always, so how long until bestiality, incest and paedophilia also become "generally accepted"?

After all, they are simply "sexual -preferences" right?

And isn't "sexual -preference" the point? Remember, homosexuals are just born that way, so why should they be penalised (so to speak...) simply for their Sexual Preference?


Really? We could have a intelligent conversation, and instead you want to go this way?

Two adult humans doing what they want to do to each other is none of your business. All the Slippery Slope Fallacies in the world will not overcome that.

Homosexuality has been accepted at various points throughout history. It still is, depending on where you are.

Now just stop it. We are talking about Phil Robertson, not your daydreams about what homosexuals do while you aren't looking.
edit on 19-12-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


I think the question is whether, by stating his religious beliefs, did he denigrate gays?

Not whether homosexuality is accepted or not...dumb question. Of course it is not, and it is.

Homosexuality is nature's way of curbing population growth. The more dense the population the greater the predominance of homosexuality. Lots of animal studies have proved this. Homosexuality is not a choice.

Funny that you support what 2 humans do in the privacy of ...etc, and yet denounce a man's right to state his religious beliefs in response to a question.

I suppose you would have preferred that he lie and answer with a PC answer that denied his belief system. I hate the show, but I respect the man for standing up for his beliefs rather than weenie out with some stupid PC answer


OH...and just because homosexuality has been accepted in history does not make it right or wrong or anything, for that matter.

Slavery has also been accepted at times and places in history throughout the world. Doesnt make it right.

Facile argument.



edit on 19-12-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)


Oh poor bracken....you didn't read anything I said other than that single post, did you?

Let me clarify for you:

I 100% support any person to do what they want in their crotch or with their crotch with any other person that agrees to it.

I 100% support any person stating that they don't agree with homosexuality.

I 0% support any person taking their statements against homosexuality and using it to mistreat another human.

What Phil robinson did....if it weren't all made up for ratings, it is perfectly fine. He has his religious convictions and I would never want him to not have that. He and I don't have to agree.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Rezlooper

calstorm
This is nothing more than a ratings ploy! The Religious have come out in their support for this show in droves, from what I have seen based on my town and comments I have seen on various articles. I have heard at least a handful of people who have said they never watched the show, but plan to now as a show of support.

It reminds of of when people flocked to Chick Fillet because of their anti-gay stance.


I never had Chik Filet, but now it's one of my favorite joints!

I never watched Duck Dynasty, but now it may become one of my favorite shows!

So sick and tired of this PC BS! What ever happened to people's right to express their own beliefs?


A&E (who employs Phil under contract) has no duty to allow him to say whatever he wants, and I'd bet it's spelled out in the contract he signed.

1. Freedom of Speech applies only to the right to speak out against the government without fear of incarceration for doing so. The end. Absolutely any other "freedom of speech" is imaginary.

2. You or I have the right to say what we believe, certainly, but not without impunity if our employers find what we've said to be injurious or counter to the company and it's bottom line.

So, you certainly have a right to express your beliefs, just as your employer has a right to suspend you or fire you for doing so, in many cases. This is especially true of people in the public eye.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

bigfatfurrytexan
So when did you decide you would be straight? How hard to you choke back your homosexual urges so that you can continue choosing to be straight?


I didn't. I was "born that way", remember? Sexual Preference is not a choice?

The same defense (Sexual Preference) also applies to gays, paedos, and camel-bangers, doesn't it?

Or does "consent" validate sexual preference now?

If an animal or a minor consented, would that make it right? Well?

Keep moving that goal post...


Obviously you are making an argument against being born gay, or you wouldn't belabor it. If you agree that homosexuals are born gay, then good. No need to restate it with an "if" in front of it.

Sexual preference isn't a choice. It doesn't mean you are born that way, either. Part of it is epigenetic, part of it is experiential (meaning, psychology applied to how you process experiences in your life). Its why some are attracted to the "mommy" or "daddy" type. Experience has given them that proclivity.

As it relates to children...can a child consent? If you think they can, then we have your view on pedophilia. Most people do not believe a child can consent, and don't feel the need to ask for clarification in the manner you have.

Regarding an animal...can an animal consent? How would you know? Regardless, same as with children.....if you think that they can consent, fine. Most people don't feel the need to ask about it...it seems obvious to them.

No one is moving the goal post. You just need glasses.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Tolerance. Why is tolerance only expected of those who have a sense of right and wrong. We are expected to tolerate the homosexual, the drug addicted, the criminal who has not gotten enough chances, the Islamic Radicals who decry Christianity, the abortionist, the welfare mother with six children by six fathers, the illegal who wants tax breaks, free medical and education for his kids,.

We have been told to tolerate, pay for, bend backwards, and bend over for every, loser, deviant , and waste of space, that has found a way to latch on to the nation we created and suck it dry and we have had enough

We, the lava under the volcano, have grown weary of the pagans dancing around the crater.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

bigfatfurrytexan
How hard to you choke back your homosexual urges so that you can continue choosing to be straight?


Isn't it great when those who claim to be champions of gays call you a "fag"?

It's the worse insult they can hurl; calling you a FAG!

Surely the irony isn't apparent only to me?

Robertson was right, as The Pretenders said: Stop your sobbing.


Of all the gay people I know, only one doesn't like the word "fag": my son. Everyone else doesn't mind it, and call each other that all the time. My best friend will come to town tomorrow with his sister and her girlfriend of 15 years. When she see's me she will say, "Whats up fag?" and we will have a nice, long visit.

I don't know why you bring this up, though. I didn't see anyone call anyone else that particular word.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Wookiep
reply to post by bbracken677
 





Funny that you support what 2 humans do in the privacy of ...etc, and yet denounce a man's right to state his religious beliefs in response to a question.

I suppose you would have preferred that he lie and answer with a PC answer that denied his belief system. I hate the show, but I respect the man for standing up for his beliefs rather than weenie out with some stupid PC answer


I hate to jump in out of no-where here, but I think you missed almost all of Bigfatfurrytexan's posts in this thread. He has actually been in support of the man's right to state his religious beliefs in response to a question. He has clearly outlined that the perhaps fabricated "societal punishment" forced upon him by the media (and what they want US to perceive as "society" as a whole) should have never taken place.

The topic was changed from that, to now arguing about whether homosexuality is ok or not. It really brought down the value of this thread at that point, IMO.
edit on 19-12-2013 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)


This i agree with.

We have an issue here of social engineering by our media, and a fake news event meant to get us talking about said media for a few news cycles. Instead of talking about the obvious mind control/psyops stemming from this, we are (once again) arguing about whether it is or is not moral to be gay.

And then my wife wonders why I often worry that I am becoming a misanthrope.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
I don't know why you bring this up, though. I didn't see anyone call anyone else that particular word.

You don't know... Is that so?

bigfatfurrytexan
How hard to you choke back your homosexual urges so that you can continue choosing to be straight?

How would your son react to the knowledge that you think being gay is a big enough insult to hurl at anyone who refuses to revere homosexuality?

Sexual Preference has nothing to do with Consent, Sexual Preference is the only thing that makes one straight, gay, paedo or a livestock fancier.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

bigfatfurrytexan
I don't know why you bring this up, though. I didn't see anyone call anyone else that particular word.

You don't know... Is that so?

bigfatfurrytexan
How hard to you choke back your homosexual urges so that you can continue choosing to be straight?

How would your son react to the knowledge that you think being gay is a big enough insult to hurl at anyone who refuses to revere homosexuality?

Sexual Preference has nothing to do with Consent, Sexual Preference is the only thing that makes one straight, gay, paedo or a livestock fancier.



You think that is an insult? Allow me to correct you: i was making fun of how stupid what you are saying is. The insult was in me making fun of you, not calling you gay.

You don't know what "sexual preference" is. You are still trying to argue that molesting a child is a "preference", and that they are able to consent. and yes, that last part WAS an insult.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

No one is moving the goal post. You just need glasses.


You said homosexuality is valid because its been accepted in the past.

So has paedophilia & bestiality, so they're just as valid?

Then you claimed Consent! was the qualifier.

Children and animals have and can consent, so, just as valid?

So if gays are valid because 'they're born that way' does that also not apply to other deviations?

So far, not one point you've made in their defense does not also apply to any deviation.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

You think that is an insult? Allow me to correct you: i was making fun of how stupid what you are saying is. The insult was in me making fun of you, not calling you gay.


In other words, an insult.


bigfatfurrytexan
How hard to you choke back your homosexual urges so that you can continue choosing to be straight?


Accusing someone of having homosexual urges is not calling someone gay, in your weird little world, eh?

What a twisted Dali-esque universe leftists must dwell in.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join