Phil Roberston "controversy"

[kidrock]

You just ain't payin' attention are ya kid.... this whole "Phil" contrivearcy was brought on by the left, all of it.

I never said it wasn't but, you know what I'm talking about don't yeah. If you agree with what someone is saying then its ok for them to say but, if you don't look out.

[t.nie]

You don't get the message either. I pointed out how you were accusing Phil of saying things ("his words") when they were actually quotes from scripture. You didn't exactly own up to your mistake on that one did you? So, Pennsylvania is referenced in the Bible? News to me. Please provide a reference.





Really? Could you provide a link to this being "on record". I'd like to see how you twisted this one too.Not going to do your research and thinking for you. Look it up yourself. And for some who say this is the end of the stupid things he has said, I doubt it. It's just the beginning.




You really don't get it, do you? The Dixie Chicks thing is apples to oranges. The right doesn't have a problem with people speaking their minds. We have a problem with people being fired for doing so. This is especially true in Phil's case. He was asked a question and answered it. For that he was "suspended indefinitely"? How does that make ANY sense in your liberal mind? So, calling for boycotts against an entertainer for speaking out against the Bush led invasion of another country--GOOD! Putting an ignorant redneck off his TV Show for spouting off stupid stuff.... BAD!! My mind is neither liberal nor conservative, it's rooted in logic and fact. And again, as usual, because you are so completely narrow minded and will take anything and twist it around upside down and backwards to be right, you miss the point. I said BOTH sides do it. You just want to argue stupidly about the example, while I make the point that you right wing zealots change your tune with whatever comes down the pike. I will say it again--when it suits YOUR agenda, it's Freedom of Speech rights being infringed. When you agree that a person should be punished because you personally disagree with their position, you conveniently forget to defend their rights.

Kidrock said it in much fewer words than I, but he sums it up perfectly. You pick and choose when someone is entitled to their rights to free speech when what they are saying is what you agree with.

Your blather brings up another point that has yet to be discussed here. You refer to him as racist. How was anything he said "racist"???? He spoke about when HE worked with blacks in the fields. And what HE heard (or didn't hear) them say. Tell me, please, how what he said can be racist???First you would have to understand how other people respond to stuff you say to understand how saying Blacks was happy happy happy as slaves would be very offensive. It's called empathetic listening, but that is way beyond your level of comprehension in the world. You have ZERO ability to see any issue from other than your won perspective. If you don't think it's racist, it's not. And that is as far as you go with anything in your world. It works very well for you and most right wingers, but you have no idea how colossally ignorant you are in the real world where other people are more open minded and can think beyond their own nose on their own face. It's "enlightened" thinking, but don't worry, you will never experience it, therefore you will never understand or grasp how his comments were abhorrently disrespectful, arrogant and bigoted.

Please don't ignore my questions. I would appreciate answers (and a link to him being on record saying what you claim).

There. Now you get to join the rest of the Neanderthals on my ignore list. At some point it becomes pointless talking to you and you offer nothing of interest to discuss.

[t.nie]

I never said it wasn't but, you know what I'm talking about don't yeah. If you agree with what someone is saying then its ok for them to say but, if you don't look out.

I thought the right wingers were all about personal responsibility? Now it's "The Left" who somehow are to blame for Phil Robertson's words.

[stockcar5]

Looks like Phil is ok with underage girls though!

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/12/31/phil-robertson-seen-in-new-video-saying-men-should-marry-girls-when-are-15-or/

[LITE-INN]

Tnie will soon be talking to himself

[DirtRacer2014]

Looks like Phil is ok with underage girls though! http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...hen-are-15-or/

Phil married a under aged girl . that is true. but he stayed with her had kids raised them with out government assistance. Many today have sex with under aged girls get them pregnant and then we the people have to pay to raise them.So if we had more like Phil we would have less ignorant low life's living off the Government!

[Clayton_Wetter]

Yep your right the right does not have a problem with people speaking their mind as long as they agree with what they are saying.

And where did you learn that myth? You are many years down the road from learning that it's all about right and wrong, not right and left.

[Clayton_Wetter]

I never said it wasn't but, you know what I'm talking about don't yeah. If you agree with what someone is saying then its ok for them to say but, if you don't look out.

Look out for what? There's a huge difference between standing up for what's right over standing up for taking away a persons freedom of opinion and speech.

[Clayton_Wetter]

There. Now you get to join the rest of the Neanderthals on my ignore list. At some point it becomes pointless talking to you and you offer nothing of interest to discuss.

Wow, boy you really showed him, but since I'm also on your ignore list, I guess you won't get to read this. How sad!

[Clayton_Wetter]

I thought the right wingers were all about personal responsibility? Now it's "The Left" who somehow are to blame for Phil Robertson's words.

Talk about pointless talking and offering nothing of interest to discuss.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Tnie will soon be talking to himself

As far as I'm concerned, he already is!!!

[skids]

Looks like Phil is ok with underage girls though!

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...hen-are-15-or/

You're as bad as t.nie. You pick one little blurb, use it out of context, and don't acknowledge the fact that he is joking around. That's why I wanted t.nie to provide a link for me. I wanted to see exactly what he looked at or read, and how he twisted it and took it out of context. Of course, I knew he wouldn't provide it, because he knew he would be proven wrong once again. He instead chooses the "I won't do your research for you" response and starts his name calling again. Then he has the nerve to accuse others of not contributing anything intellectual to the discussion.

[skids]

There. Now you get to join the rest of the Neanderthals on my ignore list. At some point it becomes pointless talking to you and you offer nothing of interest to discuss.

Since you choose to respond within my quotes I'll attempt to make this understandable.

I said:
You don't get the message either. I pointed out how you were accusing Phil of saying things ("his words") when they were actually quotes from scripture. You didn't exactly own up to your mistake on that one did you?

You said:

So, Pennsylvania is referenced in the Bible? News to me. Please provide a reference.

I am struggling to figure out if you are really this dumb, or if you know it, but can't stand to be proven wrong.

Phil was speaking to people in PENNSYLVANIA! He quoted scripture to them and said that the same immorality is happening in this country today. He asked them what they were going to do about it? Run with them? (translation for you..... do the same things?) Or choose God's way?

It's really pretty simple to understand, but I guess it's a challenge for you.



I said:
Really? Could you provide a link to this being "on record". I'd like to see how you twisted this one too.

You said:

Not going to do your research and thinking for you. Look it up yourself. And for some who say this is the end of the stupid things he has said, I doubt it. It's just the beginning.

You responded exactly how I knew you would......ducking the challenge.

I said:
You really don't get it, do you? The Dixie Chicks thing is apples to oranges. The right doesn't have a problem with people speaking their minds. We have a problem with people being fired for doing so. This is especially true in Phil's case. He was asked a question and answered it. For that he was "suspended indefinitely"? How does that make ANY sense in your liberal mind?

You said:

So, calling for boycotts against an entertainer for speaking out against the Bush led invasion of another country--GOOD! Putting an ignorant redneck off his TV Show for spouting off stupid stuff.... BAD!! My mind is neither liberal nor conservative, it's rooted in logic and fact. And again, as usual, because you are so completely narrow minded and will take anything and twist it around upside down and backwards to be right, you miss the point. I said BOTH sides do it. You just want to argue stupidly about the example, while I make the point that you right wing zealots change your tune with whatever comes down the pike. I will say it again--when it suits YOUR agenda, it's Freedom of Speech rights being infringed. When you agree that a person should be punished because you personally disagree with their position, you conveniently forget to defend their rights.

I'll say it again. I (and most of the right) don't have an issue with speaking your mind, whether I agree with you or not. It is how it is done and what the response to it is. We believe in the free market. Boycotting is a free market tool. If people don't like something, they don't have to buy it. If they can encourage others to do the same, that's their decision.

An example:
Occupy Wall Street. They have a right to voice their disapproval. They do NOT have a right to infringe on others and break the law by camping illegally in public parks and streets, crapping on police cars, raping women, breaking windows, blocking access to businesses etc.

Had people stopped watching DD because of Phil's comments, I'm fine with that. The fact is, MOST people AGREE with Phil. I'm sorry you and GLADD don't.

A & E has the right to "fire" Phil as well, but the LAW says they can't do it only based on his personal/religious views. That, by their own admission, was the ONLY reason they suspended him.

See the difference? (I doubt it).

You said:

Kidrock said it in much fewer words than I, but he sums it up perfectly. You pick and choose when someone is entitled to their rights to free speech when what they are saying is what you agree with.

If you or Kid can point out a time I did this, I'd be glad to discuss it with you and explain my side. I'll be waiting.

I said:
Your blather brings up another point that has yet to be discussed here. You refer to him as racist. How was anything he said "racist"???? He spoke about when HE worked with blacks in the fields. And what HE heard (or didn't hear) them say. Tell me, please, how what he said can be racist???

You said:

First you would have to understand how other people respond to stuff you say to understand how saying Blacks was happy happy happy as slaves would be very offensive. It's called empathetic listening, but that is way beyond your level of comprehension in the world. You have ZERO ability to see any issue from other than your won perspective. If you don't think it's racist, it's not. And that is as far as you go with anything in your world. It works very well for you and most right wingers, but you have no idea how colossally ignorant you are in the real world where other people are more open minded and can think beyond their own nose on their own face. It's "enlightened" thinking, but don't worry, you will never experience it, therefore you will never understand or grasp how his comments were abhorrently disrespectful, arrogant and bigoted.

Again, you didn't answer my question, and instead, let fly with the name calling.

He was speaking from HIS experience! How can you say HIS experience was wrong? He never said ALL SLAVES were "happy, happy, happy". (and you accuse us of picking and twisting words?)

He said the slaves HE WAS AROUND seemed happy to him. You have NO idea what HIS experience was and therefore cannot say it was not accurate NOR racist.

I have no doubt that if one of the actual slaves he referenced would tell you to your face that Phil was correct, you and the left would call him an "Uncle Tom" and say he was lying.

The left has racism in a box. It's theirs and only theirs to take out and "use" when they see fit. For example, when a president (who happens to be half black) enacts horrible policies and runs an already broken country further into the ground, nobody can criticize him.......or they are automatically "racist".

[t.nie]

You don't get the message either. I pointed out how you were accusing Phil of saying things ("his words") when they were actually quotes from scripture. You didn't exactly own up to your mistake on that one did you?

What mistake would that be? Pointing out that Phil Robertson spread his arms like Christ and issued a proclamation as though it came from God’s very own lips for Phil to pass on to us? That Phil Robertson did not say “as the Bible tells us in” then go on to cite the scripture so everyone knows he is quoting scripture? You have to see that he did not reference the Bible; he just spoke as though it was HIM doing the judging, HIM making the statement. As a matter of fact, he was asked HIS thoughts on sin, and he responded with HIS message. Only AFTER the fact does everyone make him out to be so holy and righteous by attributing his words to the Bible.

Why didn’t he give attribution to the Bible when he answered? My take is his own arrogance and self-righteousness; he really does think he is some grand old sage here to offer his wisdom and counsel to the world, when all he is doing is quoting scripture as though it’s his idea.

I am struggling to figure out if you are really this dumb, or if you know it, but can't stand to be proven wrong.
Phil was speaking to people in PENNSYLVANIA! He quoted scripture to them and said that the same immorality is happening in this country today. He asked them what they were going to do about it? Run with them? (translation for you..... do the same things?) Or choose God's way?
It's really pretty simple to understand, but I guess it's a challenge for you.

Im not really that dumb, but when someone tries to tell me he is quoting from scripture when he is only taking points made in scripture, putting his own spin on them, not attributing the words to scripture, embellishing and adding their own words to it, then someone else tries to tell me he is quoting scripture when I know for a fact there is no reference to Pennsylvania in the Bible, well…. You just leave that one wide open.

Really? Could you provide a link to this being "on record". I'd like to see how you twisted this one too. You responded exactly how I knew you would......ducking the challenge.

Sorry, but is it too hard for you to go find it yourself? And just to clarify something for you, when there is a video of you speaking, or your words are published somewhere, that’s what “on the record” means. Hope this helps you in your future research.

You really don't get it, do you? The Dixie Chicks thing is apples to oranges. The right doesn't have a problem with people speaking their minds. We have a problem with people being fired for doing so. This is especially true in Phil's case. He was asked a question and answered it. For that he was "suspended indefinitely"? How does that make ANY sense in your liberal mind?

No, actually, that’s apples to apples. Dixie Chick says she disagrees with going to war, right wingers lose their minds, call for boycotts and burn Dixie Chick stuff in protest. Pretty wild and extreme response, but hey, it’s America, people can protest and demonstrate if they don’t like someone…

Duck Dynasty Redneck says some pretty crass and stupid things about gays, homosexuality, blacks in the south and there are some stern statements made expressing disgust and disapproval of said Redneck. Channel suspends redneck, redneck supporters lose minds and start screaming about infringement of his free speech rights, religious freedom, blah blah blah.

My point, and you still won’t ever admit to seeing my point, was that BOTH sides do this. When said redneck is punished, right wingers go nuts and cry foul about freedom of speech. When left winger is punished, right wingers call it justice being served and left wingers cry foul about freedom of speech being impinged.

By the way, go into your employer tomorrow morning and exercise your “right to free speech without being fired.” Talk about how much weight his wife has gained, or tell him he makes stupid decisions, (whatever you can find to point out), just criticize him in the most offensive way possible and then let me know how your freedom of speech rights come into play when your arse is fired. Let me know how that works with your conservative Christian boss who just loves it when people speak their minds at work, freely, when you are speaking your mind about him. Let me know how that works out. LOVE to hear what happened next.

[t.nie]

I'll say it again. I (and most of the right) don't have an issue with speaking your mind, whether I agree with you or not. It is how it is done and what the response to it is. We believe in the free market. Boycotting is a free market tool. If people don't like something, they don't have to buy it. If they can encourage others to do the same, that's their decision.

I think you said it all when you said “it’s how it is done and what the response to it is.” Oh, so as long as the RIGHT WINGER gets to decide if its appropriate or not, or if it was done correctly, or if the response was handled properly, then its ok. You epitomize the ARROGANCE of the right. You want to make the rules, dictate to everyone how to do things your way, but you cannot STAND for someone else to have a say. As long as you get to make the rules, its all good. But let someone else beg to differ, and the proverbial shyt hits the fan. Thanks for making that abundantly clear.

An example:
Occupy Wall Street. They have a right to voice their disapproval. They do NOT have a right to infringe on others and break the law by camping illegally in public parks and streets, crapping on police cars, raping women, breaking windows, blocking access to businesses etc.

Your Occupy example is just stupid. You really think the people behind Occupy condone rape and all other forms of criminal activity? Are you really that dumb? As far as the rest of it, you need to go no further back in our nation’s history than the Civil Rights movement to see that change does not come easy, and sometimes it gets messy.

I guess “those black people” had the right to voice their disapproval, but only insofar as it would not disrupt white America. This is to typical of arrogant right wingers, “we will allow you to protest but it has to meet with our approval first. You can have a march, but it has to be in a cornfield 300 miles out in the middle of nowhere so you won’t disturb the good conservatives and their businesses. Run along now.”

Had people stopped watching DD because of Phil's comments, I'm fine with that. The fact is, MOST people AGREE with Phil. I'm sorry you and GLADD don't.

Oh, so you have spoken to “most” people in the USA, and have concluded “they agree with Phil.” Bull. Most people could care less, and you haven’t even surveyed them. Now, if you want to rephrase that to “most people you know and who watch Duck Dynasty agree with Phil” I’ll grant you that. But again, as most arrogant right wingers do, you just proclaim crap as though it’s proven fact when it’s not.

The problem with discussing anything with you is you are so riddled with poor logic, unsubstantiated facts, anecdote and innuendo that your arguments are based on nothing of substance. But you prove continually that, like many right wingers, you’re never going to let sound logic and fact get in the way when you can make sweeping statements and generalizations to “prove” you are right.