Since those were staples of the Democrats, you should be the expert.isadore;1555079 wrote:I will be glad to explain to you what Jim Crow and white hoods refer to you, since you obviously do not understand.
gosh a ruddies then the Republican Party violating its founders principles invited the supporters of Jim Crow in. Nixon applying his Southern Strategy for racists, picked up Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and the most of the rest of the Southern white racists. And that includes Mr. RobertsonAl Bundy;1555084 wrote:Since those were staples of the Democrats, you should be the expert.
You can have an opinion, that's fine. But it doesn't come free from consequences. If I had a television show and went on a rant about how capitalism was awful and the US should be communist I wouldn't expect to be on the air long. Same thing with any other viewpoint you express. If it goes against the cultural norms you might receive backlash. It isn't censorship or anything, it's reaction.bases_loaded;1554902 wrote:So its ok to have an opinion...but only if it supports gays. Got it.
You really have to spin hard to make this a big deal...which mainstream media will do. He is against gay marriage, doesn't understand why you would fuck in the ass when there's vagina out there, and in the end its not for him to judge because he believes were all judged in the end.
then how are glen beck and rush Limbaugh still on air?I Wear Pants;1555097 wrote:You can have an opinion, that's fine. But it doesn't come free from consequences. If I had a television show and went on a rant about how capitalism was awful and the US should be communist I wouldn't expect to be on the air long. Same thing with any other viewpoint you express. If it goes against the cultural norms you might receive backlash. It isn't censorship or anything, it's reaction. .
Because they're marketed for their disagreements with certain segments and viewpoints and have a sort of "us against them" schtick. Apparently A&E or the Duck Dynasty showrunners don't want to go that route and that's perfectly fine. It would be fine if they did want to go that route as well. I disagree with what the dude says obviously and I like that the network would not want to be associated with his words. But I love that he's able to say it without fear of retribution and the network could continue to air him if they wanted to. Those choices aren't without consequence but they are free to make them which is great.vdubb96;1555103 wrote:then how are glen beck and rush Limbaugh still on air?
You really don't get why the two types of anti-gay statements I wrote down are very much different from each other?bases_loaded;1555101 wrote:Actually it is exactly that, him voicing his opinion.
Ratings. It all comes down to money, which is why you'll see Robertson back on DD after missing a few episodes.vdubb96;1555103 wrote:then how are glen beck and rush Limbaugh still on air?
Bullshit. CNN or MSNBC would give you a contract extension.I Wear Pants;1555097 wrote: If I had a television show and went on a rant about how capitalism was awful and the US should be communist I wouldn't expect to be on the air long.
I Wear Pants;1555097 wrote:You can have an opinion, that's fine. But it doesn't come free from consequences. If I had a television show and went on a rant about how capitalism was awful and the US should be communist I wouldn't expect to be on the air long. Same thing with any other viewpoint you express. If it goes against the cultural norms you might receive backlash. It isn't censorship or anything, it's reaction.
Plus this dude didn't say the standard "I don't think gays should be able to marry because the Bible says so". He put being gay in the same category as bestiality, adultery, prostitution, greed, slander, alcoholism, and terrorism. Not exactly "just voicing his opinion".
I don't watch the show, I don't really care what the dude says since it doesn't have any bearing on my life but I hate that people will go all "hurp derp what about the 1st Amendment" on something like this. The 1st Amendment protected him from the government stopping him from saying it or from punishing him for saying it. It doesn't protect him from people thinking he's wrong or an asshole or awesome or whatever they think nor does it protect him from losing his job.
Phil basically said, "a sin is a sin." Which is Biblical truth. There is no differentiation between sins.I Wear Pants;1555109 wrote:You really don't get why the two types of anti-gay statements I wrote down are very much different from each other?
It's not that it's not PC it's that it calls gay people akin to terrorists. Hell it's even insulting to alcoholics. Just because Tiernan drinks a lot doesn't mean he should be lumped in with people that fuck animals.bases_loaded;1555113 wrote:He was asked by GQ he answered. He didn't hold a press conference to bash queers. Only a librard would prefer a lie over a non PC opinion
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”bases_loaded;1555122 wrote:Read OSHs first sentence above. Surprising someone as intellectual as yourself could miss the hick from Louisianas point.
Where did the whole interview start, and where did the editors decide to insert quotes into the article? We don't know the whole context of the conversation...or at least I don't.I Wear Pants;1555124 wrote:“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”
Whether you're talking in the Biblical context of lying to your mom about doing the laundry being equal to murdering a child or not he was still lumping in being gay with things like adultery and bestiality. You don't get a free pass because you say it's from the Bible.
"Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong... Sin becomes fine."
"œDon'™t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers --” they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."
“I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
"But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Dude talks about greed being sin while shirts with his face on them are in every Walmart.OSH;1555129 wrote:Where did the whole interview start, and where did the editors decide to insert quotes into the article? We don't know the whole context of the conversation...or at least I don't.
I know Phil said this:
What's your point?I Wear Pants;1555130 wrote:Dude talks about greed being sin while shirts with his face on them are in every Walmart.
There's plenty of organizations and people that are profitable and charitable at the same time and making money I don't think is inherently greedy. But like many things the Bible and I may have different definitions as to what greed is.OSH;1555131 wrote:What's your point?
Is it possible to not be greedy yet still make money? Is it possible to be profitable and charitable?
Or does making money always mean greed?
I haven't heard one complaint about people saying Phil's comments are out of line because of his comparisons.I Wear Pants;1555133 wrote:There's plenty of organizations and people that are profitable and charitable at the same time and making money I don't think is inherently greedy. But like many things the Bible and I may have different definitions as to what greed is.
The point being, many people are fine with gay people and don't think there's anything wrong with it. Why are people upset that these people might not like it when a dude talks about terrorists, bestiality, and adultery as being similarly sinful to being gay. (Yes, yes I'm aware you believe that all sins are equal but apparently there's a bunch of people who think that the 9/11 bombers did something worse than a dude kissing a dude).
I don't get the surprise at the push back to his statements.
See everything I've seen is more critical of the implication that gayness or the acceptance of gays leads to bestiality/acceptance of bestiality or adultery. It's a common arguing point for people who don't like gays or gay marriage or whatever and is an absurd slippery slope fallacy. Legalizing or accepting gay people doesn't make legalizing or accepting bestiality any more likely nor do the two things have anything to do with one another.OSH;1555135 wrote:I haven't heard one complaint about people saying Phil's comments are out of line because of his comparisons.
Everything I've seen is criticizing Phil over his "anti-gay comments." And, in general, everything references his "vagina...man's anus..." comments.
This is a debatable philosophy. Though I consider myself Agnostic now, I grew up in the church. They claim that all sins are equal, however, Jesus also said punishment would be handed out with "many blows" or "a few blows", basically saying there is a level of sin that is worse than another. I do agree though, this was the point Robertson was making, that all sin is equal.OSH wrote:Phil basically said, "a sin is a sin." Which is Biblical truth. There is no differentiation between sins.
