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

reply to post by bbracken677


I think anti-anything comments in today's world leads people to research any statement to see if it's isolated or if it's just the tip of the iceberg... You would think A&E would have known about his beliefs well before the show ever came to the air. So I definitely fault A&E too for this, because it's obvious they didn't do their due diligence or they did and just hoped nothing would ever come out...

reply to post by bbracken677

If you look at one of my previous posts I remark about the shredding of the constitution (actually several) and I also, in one post, remark about it happening during the last 12 years or so (Patriot Act...the greatest shredder of all IMO)

I wonder how many people who actually talk about the patriot act, have ever reviewed it, particularly with contextual reference to something other than the prevailing conspiracy theory of the moment.

With regard to spying. I took a course on political science a few years back. I read a lot of books that essentially go very deep, philosophically, analytically, and strategically, into why our world is structured the way it is.

Why is spying always seen as some agenda against the people, and not a very bad habit that governments got deeply into because the world we've generally lived in is one in which one government spies on another. Imagine you're the government of the United States. You know for certain that Iran spies on you. Iran may in fact have spies within the country. Wouldn't there be a need, an urge, to scope the public, in order to prevent Iran from succeeding in it's espionage? This is all a hypothetical, but it's designed to point out an interest other than the ones often parroted at this site.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the NSA has any right to look at my information. Perhaps we don't even know how deep the rabbit hole goes - for example, North American intenet traffic often passes through internet exchange points in Chicago and San Franscisco. As soon as this information passes into American jurisdiction, the NSA can analyze it and archive it. I don't like this, obviously. It also goes to show that major telecom giants help to make these sorts of arrangements possible.

I find it matters not whether the politician is repub or dem...they both want power, control and the usual constitutional controls are being dismantled allowing for despotism to emerge. I care not whether that despotism is in the name of republican or democrat.

I completely disagree. Were not on the verge of a despotism. At one point, years back - I think 2005 - I thought like you did. But as I began reading more deeply into political science, philosophy, systems theory, history, psychology and neuroscience - and the frequent exchanges which happen between each and many other fields - my views inevitably changed.

A book which I think should be basic reading for anyone who believes a conspiracy theory - although such a book might be above their comprehension level - is Daniel Kahnemans "thinking, fast and slow". This book is a pivotal work of cognitive science. Why is it important? Because so often, we think were being logical, when in fact, were not. We don't pay attention to this because were caught up in the "act of discovery". We love believing that we know something important that other people don't know.

Of course, corruption exists within politics. But we tend to exaggerate the extent and cohesion of the conspiracy. We also fail to consider that politicians are human beings. And not every human being who becomes a politician has money/power on his mind. They do, as well, have actual social emotions, like beliefs, hopes, dreams. They do try to use their positions of authority to effect real positive change. In other words, not every politician wants power for the sake of power. In fact, most politicians are motivated by ideology - not power for the sake of power.

The world we live in, additionally, is extremely complex. Politicians are constantly dealing with lobbyist groups to sway their views in favor of new or old legislations. This isn't limited to the business sphere, but also includes universities and institutions.

Just food for thought. The world is more complicated, and the situation more complex, than you would like me and others to believe.

jhn7537
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I think anti-anything comments in today's world leads people to research any statement to see if it's isolated or if it's just the tip of the iceberg... You would think A&E would have known about his beliefs well before the show ever came to the air. So I definitely fault A&E too for this, because it's obvious they didn't do their due diligence or they did and just hoped nothing would ever come out...

They knew..how could they have not known? The guy and his family were country boys and girls from a state whose counties are called parrishes and is part of the Bible Belt. What moron wouldnt have an inkling?

Once it appeared his remarks were going to cause a stink A&E decided to do the cowardly thing and cave rather than just remain silent, or issue a disclaimer. If they had done that there wouldnt be a firestorm now.

why are so many words bleeped out in movies and music? what social group insist on censorship? what group wants to dictate what your kids learn in science class, sex ed? why can't you cus in public? why can't you buy booze on sundays? why is it ok for a religious person to bash a minority publicly and if they are rebuked for it, somehow they have less rights? less rights how?

it was politically correct to bash gays less than a decade ago when the Christan right started taking away the rights of homosexuals, preachers and politicians equally bashed gays in the media to further there public agenda.

then the public changed its view. what goes around comes around

reply to post by jhn7537


Your buddy says that Phil uses religion to hate.
Where is the hate?
Your buddy should look to Islam if he wants to see actual hatred for homosexuals and sinners in general.

reply to post by butcherguy


If I gave you 200 books to read, and I promised you, after reading these books, you would no longer be such a pessimist, would you read them?

jhn7537

bbracken677

butcherguy
reply to post by jhn7537

 

I have yet to see any hate in Phil's statements.
The 'assclown' statement.... your buddy may be jealous of Phil's success.

You see this everywhere, by lot's of people. Their self esteem is low enough that it is critical for them to demean others in order for themselves to achieve some sense of superiority. Perhaps the buddy is intimidated by the hick's success?

I feel like both you guys are getting caught up by the assclown portion of the comment, what about the rest?

LOL do you really want me to into people who refer to someone who thinks differently as ignorant?
I do not belong to a church, I do not belong to a religion. I DO however believe that people should be allowed to exercise freedom of religion without being called ignorant by some person who feels a need to establish his perceived superiority without the ability to prove the existence of God either way.

I also do not support active hypocrisy by people who want to appear or believe they are progressive thinkers and yet are as closed minded as can be.

When you start applying these feelings, these beliefs towards a group of people, does that not make one bigoted? Does that not, pretty much, destroy whatever claim to open-mindedness you may make?

Really?

Astrocyte
reply to post by butcherguy

 

If I gave you 200 books to read, and I promised you, after reading these books, you would no longer be such a pessimist, would you read them?

Probably not.
Why not point out my statements that are pessimistic and maybe I can work on that.

Astrocyte
reply to post by butcherguy

 

If I gave you 200 books to read, and I promised you, after reading these books, you would no longer be such a pessimist, would you read them?

It probably wouldn't help.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I will give you the same option as astrocyte....
Point out the pessimism in my posts in this thread, maybe that would be constructive.

reply to post by butcherguy


I was only kidding........partly

I was reading your signature. Its a bit pessimistic.

butcherguy
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I will give you the same option as astrocyte....
Point out the pessimism in my posts in this thread, maybe that would be constructive.

I can't. I was just making light of what they said. Did you see my purty picture?

Astrocyte
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I was only kidding........partly

I was reading your signature. Its a bit pessimistic.

I was in a bad mood that day.

If I were to believe the rants of those that denigrate religious people for believing in an afterlife, then my signature would true. Then I would follow " Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

Many can be thankful that my signature isn't serious.

bbracken677

jhn7537
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I think anti-anything comments in today's world leads people to research any statement to see if it's isolated or if it's just the tip of the iceberg... You would think A&E would have known about his beliefs well before the show ever came to the air. So I definitely fault A&E too for this, because it's obvious they didn't do their due diligence or they did and just hoped nothing would ever come out...

They knew..how could they have not known? The guy and his family were country boys and girls from a state whose counties are called parrishes and is part of the Bible Belt. What moron wouldnt have an inkling?

Once it appeared his remarks were going to cause a stink A&E decided to do the cowardly thing and cave rather than just remain silent, or issue a disclaimer. If they had done that there wouldnt be a firestorm now.

You're right. It was a cowardly move by A&E. They only did it because of the potential public outrage.
A&E could care less about what is morally right or wrong. They have shows like Intervention and Hoarders, which glorify drug problems and humiliate the mentally ill with compulsive hoarding. They could care less about the gay community.
This was about saving face but I think it failed miserably.

bbracken677

Leonidas
What is happening to ATS?

This story is the Top Story? Who cares what some nutty hillbilly thinks?

For me, it is about the despotism of the PC police.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are more important matters that people should respond to in proportion to this subject.

We should be horribly outraged by our politicians support of the shredding of the constitution. We should be outraged to a degree that we make a statement by removing EVERY incumbent politician. We, the people, should be outraged that our govt is no longer of the people, by the people and we should regain control by whatever means necessary.
Our govt is out of control...out of control spending, out of control power hunger, out of control intrusion into our lives, out of control regarding virtually every aspect the constitution is supposed to guard against.

Sure, but what the hell does a dysfunctional government have to do with a network bitching out?

This thread is full of Bible-thumping death-matches and government-sucks rants.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I am not keen on the meanings of all the 'new' emotes... but I get it now.
Both posts went right over my head, as I had forgotten what was in my signature!

Duh on me...

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I do not care how gay people conduct themselves in the privacy of their homes, or if they want to marry. None of my business. I am not against gay rights. But I am also in favor of peoples right to have an opinion that they can express. The issue I take with the gay community is that they are all about rights, except when it has to do with the right of someone to have a difference of opinion with them. That is a form of repression, which ironically what they are supposed to be diametrically opposed to. Its funny but they will never really be free until they are able to accept the fact that not everyone in the world is on board with them, without reacting the way they do. The way they react to things like this gives the impression that they secretly feel that their position is too weak to stand up to criticism. So they have to crush it every time. They are actually working against themselves by doing it. The smart thing to do would be to ignore it instead of giving it all the attention they are now giving.

openminded2011
reply to post by burdman30ott6


I do not care how gay people conduct themselves in the privacy of their homes, or if they want to marry. None of my business. I am not against gay rights. But I am also in favor of peoples right to have an opinion that they can express. The issue I take with the gay community is that they are all about rights, except when it has to do with the right of someone to have a difference of opinion with them. That is a form of repression, which ironically what they are supposed to be diametrically opposed to. Its funny but they will never really be free until they are able to accept the fact that not everyone in the world is on board with them, without reacting the way they do. The way they react to things like this gives the impression that they secretly feel that their position is too weak to stand up to criticism. So they have to crush it every time. They are actually working against themselves by doing it. The smart thing to do would be to ignore it instead of giving it all the attention they are now giving.

edit on 20-12-2013 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

Well...no...imagine that you were born different, gay even and you didn't have a choice in the matter and then someone says that you should go straight to hell. How would that make you feel? Then imagine that you were born black and Phil said...hey...you were better off when you didn't have as many civil liberties or legal rights as us white guys. How would that make you feel? He's a scumbag. He does have a right to say whatever he wants and I would die fighting for his right to free speech. But we, I, whoever has a right as well to oppose scumbags like this every chance we get.

jhn7537
People believe in the bible because most were indoctrinated into the belief by their families and thats what they are told to believe..... period!

I wasn't. Family didn't go to church, Gods word was never uttered, can't recall if we even had a bible in the household. No indoctrination whatsoever here. I was 37 when I sealed the deal.

Just be careful with generalizing "people", Some, most, a lot but not all.

Now that's as much derailing as I care to be part of here.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I like Duck Dynasty,

However, I am not religious, nor do I give a hot dam about racism or gays...nor do I care about gay rights. There was a time in my life when I would rant and rave about racism to whomever would listen. I even registered as a member of The Nation of Islam while a teenager. That didn't go over well in my household as I am mixed. Besides, my Dad really thought I was a real "whack job" for following such beliefs. My father was black with a touch a Native American and my mother is white with a touch of everything. I obviously have my Personal views on homosexuality...I do not agree with it, but to each his/her own. Likewise, with racism it's awful IMVHO.

Now with all that being said, IMVHO, I think that if we as Americans are going to uphold freedom of speech and as each and every American's right, then that should pertain to "EVERYONE", not just with those whom we agree . If we do not respect the opinions, thoughts and ideologies of others from every walk of life, then who or what are we as a nation, as a people...what are we as a race...the human race.

Humankind will always be racist, always feel superior to others, always feel like they're the best. Since I am who I am, I think everyone is equal and I certainly give the next person the benefit of the doubt. All I ask in return, is that you respect me for who you see me as. If you think I'm a bad person, then say so. I will follow up....believe that! But, if you view me as a decent human then please say so and I will greatly thank you.

We can't be one sided and only uphold what we agree with....this is "hypocrisy" at its best. As a matter of fact, why isn't being a hypocrite illegal?

I know I sound naive but who freaking cares? If Mr. Robertson, said what he said...then that's what that man believes...what's wrong with that? I'll tell you what's wrong with what he said...NOTHING! GQ , asked him "HIS" opinion and he gave it!!!

If they didn't want the truth, if they didn't want his opinion then why did they ask?