isadore;1557446 wrote:according to what you believe.

isadore;1557445 wrote:I guess that is just the way it is.

isadore;1557366 wrote:lol, gosh a ruddies 21 posts on this topic, you consistently rationalize and excuse the despicable comments by this racist, homophobic bigot.

isadore;1557449 wrote:would I be wrong in saying you and I at this point have reached resolution on our dialogue on this subject?

OSH;1557525 wrote:Still waiting.

Con_Alma;1557535 wrote:Geez, I sure hope not.

isadore;1557540 wrote:I thought we had resolved the dialogue with the understanding that I thought Phil was a lying, homophobic racist and you thought he was just like you and everyone else.

isadore;1557539 wrote:gosh
sorry you either can not or refuse to understand your own posts.

OSH;1557544 wrote:That's exactly what I thought. You have an agenda and cannot understand simple dialogue or another's input on the matter.

Con_Alma;1557543 wrote:Then you thought incorrectly.

isadore;1557547 wrote:I guess I was wrong about the resolution, but definitely correct about Phil being a lying, homophobic racist. And then you trying to put us all in the same level as this piece of scum.

Con_Alma;1557548 wrote:I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean by "same level". What are the levels you are referring to?

isadore;1557551 wrote:gosh a ruddies, the level you place everyone because of your supposed religious beliefs.

bases_loaded;1554949 wrote:It's not like he came out and announced this either. This wasn't Kanye West at a benefit concert saying "bush hates black people". This is some douche reporter asking a question he knows will get headlines and Phil not being a bitch and answering it honestly.

It's a good show that doesn't use sex and violence or a husband on a coke binge to get ratings. He's right when he says this country is in a moral mess. Look how many people hate the show for being just some rich hicks who like God and have a scripted reality show.

Con_Alma;1557553 wrote:...which is what level? What are the other levels?

Apple;1557565 wrote:I have been an outsider looking in on this whole situation. I have never seen DD but have observed many articles and listened in on many conversations about the show. I have waited until now to finally open/read the last page of this thread and post a comment.

My observations:
1. Media is trying to fill space during a slow period, and is some regard, working to get the Obamacare debacle off the front page.
2. Is Phil a homophobe? I'm not sure except that he is a Bible believing Christian. I highly doubt he fears gays, however, because of his religious beliefs, he seems to have contempt for sins including homosexual acts. This puts him on the same page as many other Christian believers including the Pope. A part of me wants to say that calling him a homophobe is akin to claiming that all religions that disapprove of homosexuality are homophobic. Phil probably wears that Christian scarlet letter with pride, however, it is in regard to the sin, not to the sinner.
3. Is Phil a racist? I'm not seeing it in what I have read and heard. The racist claim takes on even less believability now that Jesse Jackson put his mug into the fray with another typical race-baiting/corporate Knock-out game claim. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/jackson-duck-star-white-privilege-101533.html
4. Is Phil a lier? Again, I haven't seen/heard/read enough to come to that conclusion, though I am guessing he will admit to being a sinner.

In the end, A&E will probably take a big financial hit as DD remains as popular, if not more-so, than ever after moving to another network. The entire situation will go down in the ash-heap of history as yet another failed Liberal attempt at controlling Americans.

isadore;1557592 wrote:1. When a man that has become a media star makes outrageous homophobic and racist statements they should cover it, his actions should be discussed.
2. Phobic can mean fear or as in this case it can and does mean a strong dislike or aversion. While the Pope is trying to extend a hand to gays, Phil is equating them with practitioners of bestiality. In a 2010 sermon he spread the word that gays and lesbians were murderers. Now that seems hateful or if you prefer phobic.
3. Whatever Jesse Jackson says has no bearing on whether Robertson’s statements are racist. Phil’s comments stand on their own. They are an outrageous defense of a despicable system. He lived in Caddo Parish, stronghold of the Klan with an extended history of racial violence. The segregated facilities were all around him. Newspaper accounts show blacks were protesting against the situation. You even have a song by Sam Cooke, a pioneer of Rock Roll, being written by him because of a racist incident in the Parish. And he claims blacks were all contented and happy.
4. Based on this he is an obvious “lier.”

isadore;1557590 wrote:one level of sinner to you, many to me.

sherm03;1557666 wrote:Just a question somewhat off topic...

Why is it that Christians will rally against gays and gay marriage so hard...but they never bring up divorce and marrying someone who was divorced? According to the Bible, that is committing adultery, which is one of the 10 big no-no's that God wrote on the stone tablets.

So why, if we're concerned about the sanctity of marriage and gays ruining it, aren't we also worried about these people that are getting divorced and re-married?

Apple;1557605 wrote:ahhh... good pick up on the spelling! Nice.

You have a few things in there that make sense... other things can and are seen differently than your view.

1. Public figures get covered, yes. In America people are allowed, even encouraged, to speak their views, especially in a Q/A for an article. Maybe he should have answered, "No comment" instead of publicly stating his religious beliefs. If I was in that sort of damned if I do/damned if I don't situation, Id probably hold true to my beliefs rather than not.
2. I'm pretty sure when Phil mentioned bestiality he was listing types of things that people do that can be considered sins by his faith. He mentioned other types of sins as well so its a bit disingenuous to say he was just mentioning one particular sin.
3. You could be correct about the claims from Caddo Parish. However, if what he stated was his recollection, it doesn't mean he is necessarily lying. You can have 5 different people see a car accident and each will give a different interpretation of what happened. Maybe Phil's comments were exactly what he saw and experienced. Just because others may have seen or did see it differently doesn't mean his recollection is a lie. I also don't recall reading/hearing/seeing that he said blacks were all contented and happy, however I did read where he said the blacks he worked with were. I haven't read the GQ article so I don't know the question he was answering or if the answer I saw he gave was incomplete or taken out of context.

thavoice;1557672 wrote:Good question. Dont forget there are many, many, many christians out there who are OK with it and accept it.


The ole slippery slope? Years ago people didnt get divorced. As time went on it became more accepted as OK (still a sin) as more and more people did it. Numbers went up over time, more and more people started to accept it and now at this point people dont bat and eye at it.

Also, I think more people can understand the reason of someone wanting to get divorced, but not the reason as to why you would want to fuck another person of the same sex, and be attracted to someone of the same sex. That just seems so repulsive to so many people.

WIth that said though...it is much more accepting now than ever before, and in 50 years people will look at homosexuals like people look at divorce today. We are always accepting more and more as time goes by.