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

reply to post by bbracken677


I think you misunderstand my position on this topic, having seen your posts in this thread. The crybabies I'm referring to are the ones that can't tolerate minorities and when people come to their defense, they start screaming and crying about political correctness. Everyone involved in this thread and those personally involved in the situation, from Phil Robertson to A&E to the LGBT community is exercising their liberty to say and act as they choose and suffer the consequences of their actions. Phil will no longer have a contract with A&E. A&E will suffer backlash and financial loss... the LGBT will suffer more intolerance from the religious sects that condemn and from fans of Duck Dynasty. Everyone wins some support in at as well. The chips will now fall where they may. Not one single person has lost their liberty of choice and most certainly not their freedom to say whatever the hell they want.

reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1


Apparently, the actually article reads different then what we are being lead to believe, the crude statment was never said during the interview but taken from one of his comments on the show .

Phil went on to talk about loving people regardless of lifestyle.

What the media reported was a cut and paste job to make him look hateful,

I knew this was going to eventually happen to these people, it was just a matter of time.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Yes, as you so eloquently stated. It certainly was a cut and paste job...the worst. They picked what they wanted and published Mr. Robertson's words out of context.

I personally feel it was unethical. But hey, what's ethical in MSM anymore...nothing. If you ask me my opinion about "anything", I will answer you honestly....but beware of the edit! Hey, you asked and I answered. That's that!

That's all I have to say about that

Phil Robertson is a victim of his own ignorance...left to suffer his convoluted interpretations.

boo hoo

ThePublicEnemyNo1
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

Yes, as you so eloquently stated. It certainly was a cut and paste job...the worst. They picked what they wanted and published Mr. Robertson's words out of context.

I personally feel it was unethical. But hey, what's ethical in MSM anymore...nothing. If you ask me my opinion about "anything", I will answer you honestly....but beware of the edit! Hey, you asked and I answered. That's that!

That's all I have to say about that

LOL! riiiiiiiiight

on homosexuality

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”


“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. Don’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.”

MrPlow
Phil Robertson is a victim of his own ignorance...left to suffer his convoluted interpretations.

boo hoo

So do you feel that people, anyone, should be punished, denied basic rights, because they are ignorant?

(Careful, the sword cuts both ways)

beezzer

MrPlow
Phil Robertson is a victim of his own ignorance...left to suffer his convoluted interpretations.

boo hoo

So do you feel that people, anyone, should be punished, denied basic rights, because they are ignorant?

(Careful, the sword cuts both ways)

That would be a valid question if Phil Robertson, a #ing reality TV star, actually was denied basic rights.
He is a television star, giving answers to a magazine. You really enjoy believing in your mind he was just some regular dude who said some # and then was tackled, beaten, and thrown in jail for what he said...?

Phil Robertson exercised his right to express his anti gay rhetoric and his employer exercised their right to fire him. Ya know what happened after all was said and done...? Everyone involved still has all of their basic human rights and are still free to pursue happiness. The end. Freedom worked for all, like it's supposed to.

MrPlow

beezzer

MrPlow
Phil Robertson is a victim of his own ignorance...left to suffer his convoluted interpretations.

boo hoo

So do you feel that people, anyone, should be punished, denied basic rights, because they are ignorant?

(Careful, the sword cuts both ways)

That would be a valid question if Phil Robertson, a #ing reality TV star, actually was denied basic rights.
He is a television star, giving answers to a magazine. You really enjoy believing in your mind he was just some regular dude who said some # and then was tackled, beaten, and thrown in jail for what he said...?

Phil Robertson exercised his right to express his anti gay rhetoric and his employer exercised their right to fire him. Ya know what happened after all was said and done...? Everyone involved still has all of their basic human rights and are still free to pursue happiness. The end. Freedom worked for all, like it's supposed to.

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

You're wrong.

Let me explain.

A&E was is their full (cowardly) right to fire him. True.

But they only did it under the pressure of GLAAD.

So you wrote a post that I disagreed with.
I can (and am) posting a rebuttal.

But if I were GLAAD, I'd contact ATS and have you banned.

Do you see the difference now?

beezzer

MrPlow

beezzer

MrPlow
Phil Robertson is a victim of his own ignorance...left to suffer his convoluted interpretations.

boo hoo

So do you feel that people, anyone, should be punished, denied basic rights, because they are ignorant?

(Careful, the sword cuts both ways)

That would be a valid question if Phil Robertson, a #ing reality TV star, actually was denied basic rights.
He is a television star, giving answers to a magazine. You really enjoy believing in your mind he was just some regular dude who said some # and then was tackled, beaten, and thrown in jail for what he said...?

Phil Robertson exercised his right to express his anti gay rhetoric and his employer exercised their right to fire him. Ya know what happened after all was said and done...? Everyone involved still has all of their basic human rights and are still free to pursue happiness. The end. Freedom worked for all, like it's supposed to.

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

You're wrong.

Let me explain.

A&E was is their full (cowardly) right to fire him. True.

But they only did it under the pressure of GLAAD.

So you wrote a post that I disagreed with.
I can (and am) posting a rebuttal.

But if I were GLAAD, I'd contact ATS and have you banned.

Do you see the difference now?

Whatever A&E's motivation, they were well within their right to do it.
And if you contacted anyone to have me banned for whatever reason, I would simply be banned from one website. Nothing more, nothing less. I would not lose any freedoms or basic human rights. I am only on this site posting because the owners of it allow me to. It is their free choice to take that away from me.
So no, I'm not wrong. Sorry

MrPlow

beezzer

MrPlow

beezzer

MrPlow
Phil Robertson is a victim of his own ignorance...left to suffer his convoluted interpretations.

boo hoo

So do you feel that people, anyone, should be punished, denied basic rights, because they are ignorant?

(Careful, the sword cuts both ways)

That would be a valid question if Phil Robertson, a #ing reality TV star, actually was denied basic rights.
He is a television star, giving answers to a magazine. You really enjoy believing in your mind he was just some regular dude who said some # and then was tackled, beaten, and thrown in jail for what he said...?

Phil Robertson exercised his right to express his anti gay rhetoric and his employer exercised their right to fire him. Ya know what happened after all was said and done...? Everyone involved still has all of their basic human rights and are still free to pursue happiness. The end. Freedom worked for all, like it's supposed to.

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

You're wrong.

Let me explain.

A&E was is their full (cowardly) right to fire him. True.

But they only did it under the pressure of GLAAD.

So you wrote a post that I disagreed with.
I can (and am) posting a rebuttal.

But if I were GLAAD, I'd contact ATS and have you banned.

Do you see the difference now?

Whatever A&E's motivation, they were well within their right to do it.
And if you contacted anyone to have me banned for whatever reason, I would simply be banned from one website. Nothing more, nothing less. I would not lose any freedoms or basic human rights. I am only on this site posting because the owners of it allow me to. It is their free choice to take that away from me.
So no, I'm not wrong. Sorry

So you do agree that punitive actions should be taken if someone speaks about something that someone else disagrees with?

Because you'd be okay with the speculative "ban".

Christian Voice
reply to post by luciddream

 

No one uttered hate speech of any kind. If you think he did then you have some deep seated emotional issues.

SEMANTICS!! Entirely irrelevant!

He already did the required step because he consciously (or sub-consciously) lumped in homosexuals with prostitutes and swindlers, in his eyes they are criminals. The REST is entirely semantics, whether he only THINKS homosexuals are equal to criminals or openly would call upon violent actions in a "real" hate-speech...it doesn't matter. What matters is his mind-set here and it's entirely clear and obvious from the context in what and how he said it.

And do NOT argue back that it cannot be hate speech (or disguised hate, intolerance whatever) because he bases what he says and thinks on the bible. THIS MAKES IT NOT LESS HATE, in the same way as it doesn't become more justified or legit if a Muslim terrorist would call upon on war again the West (or justifying stoning of women) JUST BECAUSE THE QUARAN MAY SAY SO it's ok.

Worse even, that you and similar people do not even recognize your own hate and intolerance...and how you conditioned yourself (or let others condition you) to become prejudging and intolerant - because this IS THE BASE of hate. You need to have a "reason" to hate, whether this reason is rational or not. Assuming that homosexuals are in the same group of people like "swindlers" and criminals is all that's needed.

TheWrightWing
reply to post by bbracken677

 

Leftists prefer to turn men into onesy-wearing cocoa sippers who welcome our Big Government overlords.

They actively target manly men to destroy the image of masculinity in the hopes of making that a thing of the past.

So..if I say I don't effing care what sexual preferences someone has and if I don't effing care whether someone is gay...it makes me less manly?

Ahhh....rrrriiiggghhtttt....

The amount of ignorance in this thread is unbelievable. Borderline hilarious.

Phil didn't attack gays at all and didn't compare it to beastiality. He said he found it illogical for a man to put his penis into a man's anus when a woman's vagina has more to offer in his opinion. He was asked about his definition of sinful. He said: "Let's start with homosexuality and go on from there". He then explained what he believed homosexuality was and went on to speak about ALL sins and what they meant to him including beastiality and used the bible as his source. Not once did he compare the two and he didn't force this as 100% truth and made it clear it was his beliefs. Not what all should believe. All these people saying he went on a rant and compared gays to this and that, clearly HAVE NOT READ THE FULL ARTICLE and only read the condensed, out-of-context version making the rounds. Don't say you did becasue you are clearly lying.

To the A&E crowd saying they had every right to fire him. Did they? Yes they have the right but that doesn't make it right. It's still illegal for them to have done that. You CANNOT fire an employee over their religious beliefs. Plain and freaking simple TRUTH. They did it out of pure fear of any backlash from the gay community. I'm guessing they don't check their Facebook or Twitter accounts much to see how many people in the gay community have come out to support Phil. Any of you people here checked comments at said sites? They have support coming from large amounts of gays and also atheists who are speaking out on his freedom of speech.

Now people are claiming he is racist towards blacks. These people clearly have never watched a single episode or they would know that Willie adopted an African American child who Phil has referred to as a pure Robertson. He wouldn't accept him as blood if he was the racist, southern redneck that people are implying. Also, for anyone that has watched the show sinice the beginning would know there's been people on there who are clearly gay and Phil didn't care at all. I've also noticed that a good amount of people (including me and a gay nephew of mine) think John Luke is either a closet gay or at least bi-sexual. Or maybe just picked up some of that feminine side that Si clearly has. The man has a thing for wearing feather boas that Phil himself has laughed at.

Here's what people haven't noticed. Notice that Phil has been speaking out about politics a lot more than usual recently? He was getting a LOT of support for his political views. Now out of nowhere GQ does this interview and this complete twisted and out-of-context version is plastered all over the internet. At the same time Barbara Walters has come out saying he "snubbed" her by not appearing in her interview with the Robertson family. She "forgot" to mention Jase also didn't attend it and implied that Phil did it out of hate. In reality Phil and Jase didn't want to miss one of the best times for duck hunting. Imagine that. Life-long hunters would rather hunt instead of sitting through a boring Barbara Walters interview. Shocker. Anyone who follows the Robertson's while they aren't doing the show can see they clearly don't care about the fame. Phil and Jase being the biggest ones out of all of them that could care less. Someone/group sees Phil as a threat and made their move to get him out of the spotlight over his political views.

This isn't the first time Phil has gone up against A&E. They asked him to stop doing the family prayer at dinner and he wasn't having that at all. Threw it in their face that it was them (A&E) who wanted them to be themselves on camera and that's who they are. Remove the prayers and he's done. If people don't like it, they can change the channel. They shut up pretty quick after that one.

To the ones complaining about how stupid the show is and how it's all about them selling merchandise at Walmart. That's pure A&E folks. Go look at all the Duck Dynasty stuff and you'll see they all have the exact same images of the Robertson's faces. Meaning they aren't out there posing for merchandise photos 24/7 like others believe. That's all A&E's part. I saw an interview where Willie and Jase themselves talk about how there's way too much of it out there and how a good chunk is useless crap. Favorite part was Jase talking about the garden gnomes. "Why would anyone want a gnome with our face on it? Creepy and weird. What are you gonna do?". Yes they make money from it because of their likeness being on it, but A&E is by far getting the biggest chunk since it's them having it all made and shipped out.

If this ends the show, I guarantee this is Phil's response: "More time for hunting *thumbs up* Happy, happy, happy" Jase: "I'm going with ya". It won't phase them at all. They were already doing a show on the outdoor channel that I believe they still do and also make their own DVD's and were doing all this before they appeared on A&E. More time for hunting is all they will get out of this.

Before the trolls hit: I'm not gay or a bible thumping Christian. Straight and married to a woman. I do believe there's some type of "God", but I do not believe in the bible has 100% truth. I do not share Phil's beliefs at all, but the man has a right to speak his mind and should not have been illegally fired for it. I could care less who a person is with. If a person is in love and "happy, happy, happy" in a same-sex relationship, more power to them.

rupertg
Turns out the guys from Duck Dynasty are hardcore evangelical Christians, which explains why they all look like inbred versions of Moses.

how bigoted of you to point that out.

thanks, i'm sure no one would have made that connection.

except you.

reply to post by LDragonFire


kill the cracka babies.

need i say more?

reply to post by nightmare_david


awesome post. all true too.

star.

they will pull the rug out from under A&E.

it'll hurt too. lol!

reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1


Here is the thing, if that quote from Phil was taken from the show, a quote that has already been aired, not something he said in the interview, then A&E has nothing on him, .

reply to post by nightmare_david

He said he found it illogical for a man to put his penis into a man's anus when a woman's vagina has more to offer in his opinion.

And apparently he said that on one of the shows not in the interview, so my guess it was purposely done to get Phil.

reply to post by nightmare_david

Here's what people haven't noticed. Notice that Phil has been speaking out about politics a lot more than usual recently?

I connected those dots.

reply to post by nightmare_david


20 some odd pages of nonsense, and you said all that needs to be said. Well put.