O-Trap;1556849 wrote:Dear lord, this topic is overwhelming...Nearly unbearable.

OSH;1556855 wrote:So, I'll post a typical response and be exactly what I started the post with...

isadore;1556587 wrote:Phil Robertson is a racist, homophobe

Josh Barro in Business Insider
Robertson's defenders should read his comments again, because their defenses are off-point. If you're defending Robertson, here's what you're defending:
<dir> <dir> Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there. " I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
</dir> </dir> Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus. "A ll you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
<dir> <dir> Robertson hates gay people. Robertson in 2010: " Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. 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."
</dir> </dir> This last one is key. My inbox is full of "love the sinner, hate the sin" defenses of Robertson's 2013 remarks. But Robertson doesn't love gay people. He thinks they're, well, "full of murder." His views on gays are hateful , inasmuch as they are full of hate.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/defend-phil-robertson-heres-youre-001248300.html

O-Trap;1556849 wrote:Dear lord, this topic is overwhelming.

Kind of like any social media outlet since this whole thing came up. Nearly unbearable.

1. Phil, his family, and all of us can say what we want. He isn't being imprisoned, fined, or censored. He hasn't been thus far, and he won't be. All this "Stand with Phil" stuff is fine if its purpose is to pressure A&E into reversing their decision (as happened with Cracker Barrel).

2. If, however, it's being used as a platform to claim his first amendment rights are being infringed, then stop it. You're bastardizing the amendment, and you're attempting to limit the rights of businesses to conduct themselves as they best see fit. A&E did nothing wrong. I would have probably handled it the same way they did. Suspend him, wait to see the public reaction, and determine from that whether or not it's best to keep him around until it all blows over.

3. He didn't equate homosexuality with the other things mentioned in the same sentence. He said that's where any of several other immoral activities/behaviors start (I disagree, but right now, IDGAF). In essence, he referred to homosexual activity/lifestyle as a "gateway drug" of sorts, much like the argument has been made of marijuana in the past. The implication can easily be seen to suggest that he thinks homosexuality may NOT be on the same plane as the rest of what he mentioned, but that it leads to the "harder drugs" of immoral behavior. Again, whether he's right or wrong on that fact can be discussed, but it doesn't require that they be seen as equal in all aspects ... merely that they have at least one thing in common, which wasn't even mentioned on a scale.

If I say, "Bestiality, homosexual intercourse, analingus, group sex, heterosexual intercourse, masturbation, hand jobs, and even kissing are all examples of sexual activities," am I not comparing them on some level? Sure. Not in degree, and not in any sense OTHER than the fact that they are all sexual activities, to some degree.

He was comparing them in saying they were all "sin." Did he say they were all equally egregious? Did he say anything other than the fact that they all qualify as immoral? Did he make any specification as to whether or not they were sins of the same degree? No.

If two people do a math problem, and one has an incorrect answer that is 0.2 off of the correct answer while the other is off by 216, can I call them both incorrect, or do I have to specify that one is further from the correct answer than the other? Am I equating them? Only in the sense that they're both incorrect.

If we're looking at "sin" as an imperfect action, can one call two of them sin without implying that they are equally immoral? I should hope so.

4. Even the comment regarding black people alongside whom he worked being happy seems to have been grossly sensationalized. He seemed to say they were happy "despite their circumstances," implying that their circumstances were, indeed, not the motivations for them being happy. Can I be happy amid bad circumstances? Sure. Is it possible for my brother, friend, or acquaintance to voice that fact without implying that I was okay with my circumstances? I should hope so.


A little critical thinking would go a long way toward how a lot of people seem to react to things like this, and that applies to people who "stand with" either side (so much that they'll share something about it on Facebook ... such passion ... LOL).

Everyone, on all sides, just needs to calm the hell down. Without the show, the business will do just fine. I just recently saw their wine and cigar lines showing up everywhere. The cigars aren't half bad, and I'm willing to bet they've branded themselves well enough that these two ventures will do well in addition to Duck Commander's and Buck Commander's flagship products. I'm sure they want to stay on the air, but I sincerely doubt they'll have to alter their lifestyles much if they don't (except what pertains to filming itself).

And A&E will do just fine, either way, as well. They've been successful enough without the Duck people, so I don't think they'll need them. If they need to, I'm sure they'll come up with something else that will fill in at least reasonably.

isidore;1556865 wrote:gosh a ruddies.......perhaps mr. barro needs a class in reading comprehension. his hate for mr. robertson has apparently made him a victim of his own religious bigotry.

O-Trap;1556849 wrote:Dear lord, this topic is overwhelming.

Kind of like any social media outlet since this whole thing came up. Nearly unbearable.

1. Phil, his family, and all of us can say what we want. He isn't being imprisoned, fined, or censored. He hasn't been thus far, and he won't be. All this "Stand with Phil" stuff is fine if its purpose is to pressure A&E into reversing their decision (as happened with Cracker Barrel).

2. If, however, it's being used as a platform to claim his first amendment rights are being infringed, then stop it. You're bastardizing the amendment, and you're attempting to limit the rights of businesses to conduct themselves as they best see fit. A&E did nothing wrong. I would have probably handled it the same way they did. Suspend him, wait to see the public reaction, and determine from that whether or not it's best to keep him around until it all blows over.

3. He didn't equate homosexuality with the other things mentioned in the same sentence. He said that's where any of several other immoral activities/behaviors start (I disagree, but right now, IDGAF). In essence, he referred to homosexual activity/lifestyle as a "gateway drug" of sorts, much like the argument has been made of marijuana in the past. The implication can easily be seen to suggest that he thinks homosexuality may NOT be on the same plane as the rest of what he mentioned, but that it leads to the "harder drugs" of immoral behavior. Again, whether he's right or wrong on that fact can be discussed, but it doesn't require that they be seen as equal in all aspects ... merely that they have at least one thing in common, which wasn't even mentioned on a scale.

If I say, "Bestiality, homosexual intercourse, analingus, group sex, heterosexual intercourse, masturbation, hand jobs, and even kissing are all examples of sexual activities," am I not comparing them on some level? Sure. Not in degree, and not in any sense OTHER than the fact that they are all sexual activities, to some degree.

He was comparing them in saying they were all "sin." Did he say they were all equally egregious? Did he say anything other than the fact that they all qualify as immoral? Did he make any specification as to whether or not they were sins of the same degree? No.

If two people do a math problem, and one has an incorrect answer that is 0.2 off of the correct answer while the other is off by 216, can I call them both incorrect, or do I have to specify that one is further from the correct answer than the other? Am I equating them? Only in the sense that they're both incorrect.

If we're looking at "sin" as an imperfect action, can one call two of them sin without implying that they are equally immoral? I should hope so.

4. Even the comment regarding black people alongside whom he worked being happy seems to have been grossly sensationalized. He seemed to say they were happy "despite their circumstances," implying that their circumstances were, indeed, not the motivations for them being happy. Can I be happy amid bad circumstances? Sure. Is it possible for my brother, friend, or acquaintance to voice that fact without implying that I was okay with my circumstances? I should hope so.


A little critical thinking would go a long way toward how a lot of people seem to react to things like this, and that applies to people who "stand with" either side (so much that they'll share something about it on Facebook ... such passion ... LOL).

Everyone, on all sides, just needs to calm the hell down. Without the show, the business will do just fine. I just recently saw their wine and cigar lines showing up everywhere. The cigars aren't half bad, and I'm willing to bet they've branded themselves well enough that these two ventures will do well in addition to Duck Commander's and Buck Commander's flagship products. I'm sure they want to stay on the air, but I sincerely doubt they'll have to alter their lifestyles much if they don't (except what pertains to filming itself).

And A&E will do just fine, either way, as well. They've been successful enough without the Duck people, so I don't think they'll need them. If they need to, I'm sure they'll come up with something else that will fill in at least reasonably.

isadore;1556879 wrote:3. Gosh from previous statements it would seem if anything he would consider homosexuality worse than bestiality. He may have even consider bestiality &#8220;the gateway drug.&#8221; to the abomination of homosexuality.
&#8220;
...
&#12288;

isadore;1556872 wrote:your statement is not based on any analysis of his comments and sources. As he shows mr. Robertson is both a bigot and racist. And gosh a ruddies an isadore by any other name is not the isadore.

gosh ruddies

bases_loaded;1556885 wrote:My grandmother was a cotton picking share cropper in Arkansas during the same time. She didn't know how bad the blacks had it either...mostly because her poor white ass had it as good as them. She didn't have the opportunity to learn about how bad the white man was, she was too busy living it and trying to survive. Liberal elites don't understand perspective. The only one they believe is right, is there own. Phil was probably a poor ass farmer sharing the land with his fellow poor ass black men.

Wasadore;1556882 wrote:Fuck a ruddies, even a racist and a bigot can be re reamed.

Con_Alma;1556881 wrote:What something"seems" is not always what it is.

Taking in many statement from his public claims on the topic and consider them as a whole and his position is quite clear.

isadore;1556889 wrote:yes he is a racist and a bigot.

isadore;1556887 wrote:gosh a ruddies he did notice those lousy facilities for blacks, those guys with hoods running around the parish and the utter intimidation of black people. "None are so blind as those who will not see."

bases_loaded;1556892 wrote:Not out in the fields trying to make it to the next dinner. There wasn't a handout connected to a vote for people back then.

Con_Alma;1556890 wrote:Yea, lol. Sure he is. He's whatever you want him to be.

isadore;1556895 wrote:his statements define him.

isadore;1556894 wrote:lol, gosh a ruddies. Phil Robertson's ilk denied blacks the right to vote, and threatened to kill any one of them who tried.

Con_Alma;1556896 wrote:...only when you add merit to hand selected statements. It "seems" that's important to you! He's whatever you want him to be.

bases_loaded;1556898 wrote:By that precedent so did yours...

isadore;1556899 wrote:...

Sermon where he expresses his deepest view to the congregation, he defines himself.

Con_Alma;1556901 wrote:If that's what you want him to be. ....or he could be defining Biblical meaning.