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: 46
78
<< 43  44  45    47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Fylgje
 


It's a not a competition for right against left and just so you know I'm a registered independent voter...too embarrassed by either party to identify myself as such.

He said what he said and that's that. He said black people were better off before civil rights and he said homosexual behavior led to bestiality and worse in some of his other statements. That's hateful and stupid. I don't call southerners inbred. I'm calling out one man for his atrocious attitude and statements and wondering why everyone is defending him, because he calls himself a Christian? it's pathetic.




posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   

beezzer

amazing


Then he went on to say that black people were better off when they didn't have the same rights as white people. How do you define that? I'm not making stuff up here. You need to pay attention to what that hateful man is saying. Seriously. It's not okay.


Can you find the source for me? I'd like to see how he said that.


Just google it. He's all over the internet on the latest article and interview on GQ to one he gave back in 2010. Can't remember where he gave that. Very easy to find. The man's a scumbag. Truth, brother. Deny ignorance.

Here's one quoted source.

"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." -- Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa

www.latimes.com... .story#ixzz2oBG66oVx

edit on 21-12-2013 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


So it was "implied" by the author that he thought that way.

The author "inferred" it.

in·fer
/inˈfər/
verb
past tense: inferred; past participle: inferred
1.deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

im·plied
/imˈplīd/
adjective
past tense: implied
1. suggested but not directly expressed; implicit.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   

amazing

beezzer

amazing


Then he went on to say that black people were better off when they didn't have the same rights as white people. How do you define that? I'm not making stuff up here. You need to pay attention to what that hateful man is saying. Seriously. It's not okay.


Can you find the source for me? I'd like to see how he said that.


Just google it. He's all over the internet on the latest article and interview on GQ to one he gave back in 2010. Can't remember where he gave that. Very easy to find. The man's a scumbag. Truth, brother. Deny ignorance.

Here's one quoted source.

"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." -- Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa



Just pointing out that what he is doing here is quoting christian scripture with some paraphrasing at some points. Also some editing and some license with applications and additions. Heres one area he is taking this from....Romans 1



Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Don't anyone start in on me for posting this. We have been discussing this for some time on several threads and know one has posted Phils source. So here it is and its ruff stuff. Its New Testament as well. Phil was actually giving the "lite" version.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



So it was "implied" by the author that he thought that way. The author "inferred" it.

Indeed. The author both inferred some things - and implied some things

Can you tell us what those things are? :-)

You know what Beezer? I am nothing if I'm not an ACLU groupie. Why, I believe I might do just about anything to get backstage. I'll let you try and work out (or infer) what I'm implying

There's a reason why the 1st Amendment is first - because without it all the guns in the world are not going to save us

I've been reading through these threads and through a lot of the stuff outside this site and I am astonished and dismayed by a few things...mostly how everyone is so quick to defend his right to say what he said, but so few conservatives are willing to break rank and call it what it is. There is a definite lack of integrity in some of these arguments. Unless we're all going to agree that bigotry is OK. Freedom to be a bigot is guaranteed - as is our right to call them on their crap

So, guess what Beezer? There are still bigots in this country - and some of them are older, white conservative men. Some of them - not all of them. And you know what else? They are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. And some of them are bigoted because, honest to Betsy - they just don't know any better

And guess what else? They are not the only bigots in this country, or in this world - but this particular story is about Phil Robertson

There's no real reason to vilify this man - he's not the worst of a bad lot. But - there's no reason to support him either

This is what it is

is (z)
v.
Third person singular present indicative of be.
[Middle English, from Old English; see es- in Indo-European roots.]

be (b)
v. First and third person singular past indicative was (wz, wz; wz when unstressed), second person singular and plural and first and third person plural past indicative were (wûr), past subjunctive were, past participle been (bn), present participle be·ing (bng), first person singular present indicative am (m), second person singular and plural and first and third person plural present indicative are (är), third person singular present indicative is (z), present subjunctive be
v.intr.

1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.





edit on 12/22/2013 by Spiramirabilis because: rearranging



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
THis is off topic but hope it will not be deleted. It shows how talking it out can sometimes bring you to understand another person's point of view...
About 15 years ago I was working in a hosiery mill as an inspector. A new girl came in, a very big girl, and was put on the machine beside me. She was a black girl.
There were many people working there that was black, white, Hispanic and a few Chinese.
Everyone was friendly to each other.. Except this new girl
From the very start, she would shove me, make snide remarks under her breath when she passed me when getting her tray work and take more of the best work to her machine and stack it up.. Not suppose to do that.!! Only one tray at a time
Finally one day, she and I got into an argument over her getting the best work and piling it up. After a few words.. I ask, "Do you want a new partner?" She said, "yes!" . So, I said, very rudely, "You got a chip on your shoulder about white people, so what, you want them all gone!?.
She said up in my face "As a matter of a fact..."That would be nice, starting with you!" I said back in her face.... "Oh yeah? Well guess what!? I want all black people, especially you, all white people and every other people gone because I am Indian and this is my country so everyone get out!!
Well... She just stared at me for a minute and then busted at laughing.. .. She said... "I like you Indian girl, no girl black or white usually will stand up to me or talk back."" We both started laughing.. Then she said...."Seriously? You are Indian? I said .."Yep. on 2 grand ma's side.
After that we became best friends and worked together just fine for a couple of years, until she got in a fight in the office with My Irish boss lady and got fired. She came by my machine and we hugged and said bye... She said, , "Good luck, Indian girl, running everyone out of your country." WE laughed and she was gone..
edit on 22-12-2013 by galaxy40 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


In their contract it most likely mentioned something about merchandise and using their likeness on said merchandise.

The show comes out and is a bigger hit than A&E expected and releases some merchandise sold exclusively at Walmart. A&E has that deal with Walmart, not the Robsertsons. Keep that in mind. Merchandise starts selling like crazy. Walmart puts in large orders and A&E creates even more merchandise.

I forgot to mention I am a former Walmart employee. I know for a fact that A&E and Walmart keep most of the cash from merchandise sales. How much the Robertson's get all depends on their contract. Are they making money from just their likeness or off any merchandise sold? If it's just their likeness then they are getting a good amount but only from the items featuring their faces. Look at how much Duck Dynasty stuff doesn't feature their faces lately.

I am surprised at how many people still haven't read the full article. Keep saying he compared homosexuality to beastialty and that he attacked blacks. Every time you say that it proves you didn't real the full article. He was asked what he that sinful meant. He then quoted all the sins directly from the bible and said IN HIS EYES he thought a man would find a woman's vagina more desirable and offer more than a mans anus. About blacks, he never said they were never treated badly. Just that where he was, he never saw any of that. His entire interview was taken out of context in the version that made the rounds.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

amazing
reply to post by Fylgje
 


It's a not a competition for right against left and just so you know I'm a registered independent voter...too embarrassed by either party to identify myself as such.

He said what he said and that's that. He said black people were better off before civil rights and he said homosexual behavior led to bestiality and worse in some of his other statements. That's hateful and stupid. I don't call southerners inbred. I'm calling out one man for his atrocious attitude and statements and wondering why everyone is defending him, because he calls himself a Christian? it's pathetic.


You're misunderstanding what he said. Basically, he said, based on what he saw, blacks seemed to be happy. oooohh!! "racist", I know(rolls eyes). Secondly, Do you have a link where he says that "homosexual behavior leads to beastiality?" You can't, because he didn't say it. He was going down the list of sins, NOT SAYING THAT ONE LED TO ANOTHER. You should know better. I've heard more "hateful and stupid" things said about Phil/southerners than I've ever heard any of the guys from Duck Dynasty say about anyone else. Talk about racists. His "atrocious attitude" was direct quotes from the bible, and he was asked, or shall I say, set up by New York Yankees who were hell-bent on trying to bring the man down, except, IMO, all it done was open more eyes and create another level of hate against city people(Yankees) and call into question the anti-freedom of speech that GLAAD seems to be stamping out like communists. What I see and hear is "pathetic". And desperate. All of this unified country folk even more.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Ollie769
I'm glad someone mentioned the fact that an A&E rep was present at the GQ interview. It's beginning to look like this is another lie that the holier-than-thou gay PC police are foisting on the world's consciousness. From the poor sot that was murdered in Wyoming years ago ostensibly because he was homosexual whose name became a rallying call, but it turns out he was just a drug dealer, to the waitress that forged the receipt belonging to a totally innocent family saying they refused her a tip because of her lifestyle. One poster somewhere in these threads wrote that the gay community is shot through with something like, paraphrasing here, over exuberant animosity or something close to that. Yeah, that's being pretty charitable IMHO. GLAAD has had a huge backlash over this idiocy. Hopefully it will set them back years if they keep it up.


The greater agenda is to modify the Bill of Rights to eliminate all rights that concern religion (under the guise of separation of church/religion and state).


edit on 22-12-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Not my words, this post was made by Skeptic Overlord on another thread. I think it fits beautifully here..

Skeptic Overlords words


The right of free speech, in the United States, is specific to government controls or intervention. Specific to free speech, the first amendment guarantees the government will make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. This has no application in the private sector.

Every person engaging in an entertainment contract, sports contract, or high-profile corporate position will have numerous clauses the define certain behaviors, some of which pertain to public expression of controversial ideas… especially in entertainment contracts. You can be certain that those appearing on-screen in A&E's Duck Dynasty had numerous clauses (as has been reported in the media) that define public behavior… and that Phil's comments in an on-the-record interview with an international magazine broke those clauses.

This is not a freedom of speech issue Anyone couching it as such is being deceptive.

He is being punished for breaking an agreement with the network.


So, for those who want to state his civic rights were violated, that's not true in this case...
edit on 22-12-2013 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
No, Antonia, Mad Men and Walking Dead ARE NOT on A & E. They are on AMC, so this will not hurt the viewership of those two shows one iota.



antonia
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Well, you nailed it. People only want people fired when it offends their side. Personally, I would have fired Bashir and I don't like Palin either. That was just a tacky, ignorant thing to say. As for Phil, I think i'd have to weigh the numbers. I doubt too many gay men are hooked on duck dynasty, but Mad Men and Walking dead also air on the channel. A boycott could come and I wouldn't want to be parted with my dollars.
edit on 19-12-2013 by antonia because: opps



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


He doesn't know (none of us do) what's in their contract. You can't state what he says as fact unless you have a copy of the contract.

An A&E rep was present during the interview. Now if that's in their contract and the rep didn't stop him, something shady is going on with A&E or there's no clause like that in the contract and so the rep didn't bother stopping him.

He gave an interview that was completely twisted to make him look like something he's not. Not really surprised Skeptic said that. Seems like he always takes the side that won't hurt the site in some way. Shocker.

@antonia

Wrong network. All A&E really has that pulls in ratings is Duck Dynasty, Storage Wars and The First 48. Duck dynasty destroys both of those averaging 14 million viewers each episode. There's a reason they constantly air DUck Dynasty and Storage Wars marathons. They even started to randomly air it on the sister channels History and Lifetime. Why? To pull in viewers hoping to watch their other stuff.

As for the gay fans, check their Facebook and Twitter accounts and look at how many gays and atheists have come out to support Phil. Funny how the two groups they apparently offended have a surprisingly large amount of fans.
edit on 23-12-2013 by nightmare_david because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   

hotintexas
No, Antonia, Mad Men and Walking Dead ARE NOT on A & E. They are on AMC, so this will not hurt the viewership of those two shows one iota.


Man I made that mistake in a thread.

But the point is still good. Look at how Mad Men represents and we don't hear anyone complaining really. You will never see a show about any sort of GL deal that exposes the dysfunction in their world like Mad Man does to those in that world. Most of GL representation everywhere these days is mostly sterilized, characterized ect. It only white male executives and the women in their world that are shown as drunks and sluts.
edit on 24-12-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


I don't bite :p

I'm not a religious fanatic at all, I just love Love,

just remember,

Matthew 10:32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

jhn7537
Not my words, this post was made by Skeptic Overlord on another thread. I think it fits beautifully here..

Skeptic Overlords words


The right of free speech, in the United States, is specific to government controls or intervention. Specific to free speech, the first amendment guarantees the government will make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. This has no application in the private sector.

Every person engaging in an entertainment contract, sports contract, or high-profile corporate position will have numerous clauses the define certain behaviors, some of which pertain to public expression of controversial ideas… especially in entertainment contracts. You can be certain that those appearing on-screen in A&E's Duck Dynasty had numerous clauses (as has been reported in the media) that define public behavior… and that Phil's comments in an on-the-record interview with an international magazine broke those clauses.

This is not a freedom of speech issue Anyone couching it as such is being deceptive.

He is being punished for breaking an agreement with the network.


So, for those who want to state his civic rights were violated, that's not true in this case...
edit on 22-12-2013 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)


Then why is it people can be taken to court for violation of the civil rights if the bill of rights is only applicable to the Govt only?



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


Agree with you, but, I don't think disagreeing with the way someone conducts themselves is necessarily hate speech. If your religious view is that homosexuality is a sin (and its highly questionable that Christianity does, I don't think there is even a mention of it in the new testament), you may disagree on the basis that you see that person as sinning, but it does not mean you hate that person. To be sure there is a subset of evangelical Christians who are virulently anti gay. But I am not sure if they hate gays.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
A&E announced that Phil is back on the show.
Fox News



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Hmmm... I wonder if this was an intentional test of how relaxed the frog was getting. Turning up the heat resulted in a bit of croaking and some kicking, so the temps were brought back down a bit for more conditioning.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


He was threatening to sue A&E, so they caved...

-SAP-



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

nightmare_david
I am surprised at how many people still haven't read the full article. Keep saying he compared homosexuality to beastialty and that he attacked blacks. Every time you say that it proves you didn't real the full article. He was asked what he that sinful meant. He then quoted all the sins directly from the bible and said IN HIS EYES he thought a man would find a woman's vagina more desirable and offer more than a mans anus. About blacks, he never said they were never treated badly. Just that where he was, he never saw any of that. His entire interview was taken out of context in the version that made the rounds.



Amen.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 43  44  45    47 >>

log in

join