Phil Roberston "controversy"

[t.nie]

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).

They didn’t suspend him for his beliefs. They suspended him for making statements that were grossly offensive to other people. See the difference? (I doubt it.)

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???
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.

Phil Robertson—“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.”

Know what amazes me here? On the one hand, Skids is telling me that I cannot possibly say Phil Robertson’s experience was wrong. But he is convinced Phil Robertson CAN speak for the people he observed and if Phil says they was happy, then by golly, they WAS HAPPY!!!

I guess he just doesn’t grasp that Phil Robertson cannot speak for those same black people he was around, ether. And there has been plenty of rebuttal FROM black people saying that the white guy from the woods doesn’t have the first clue what those black people felt, because he wasn’t a black person in the south at the time.

And let's be perfectly clear about this Skids, Phil did not say "They SEEMED happy" (your words), no, he made a factual, unequivocal statement: "They were happy." See the difference? (I doubt it.)

And as far as “happy, happy, happy” I count him saying it twice in reference to them. So you are correct! Phil only said they was “happy, happy.” Not “happy, happy, happy.” I stand corrected, sir!

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".

Oh, here we go, the old end around on racism. “The Left just cries RACISM whenever someone makes an innocent negative comment about anything the President says. Why, we just can’t even utter a peep about disagreeing with the President in the most respectful, polite way that the Lefties don’t immediately POUNCE on us and say we are racist. Golly, beave. I don’t know what to do….”

Rush Limbaugh on the ACA ? He called it Black Reparations. Really? More whites than blacks will benefit from it, but whatever ole Rushbo, the king of hate radio says, the minions believe.

Glenn Beck? Couldn’t wait to sling the first accusation at Obama that “he is a racist and hates whites.” But yet to hear the Skids of the world tell it, it's always the LEFT that makes that accusation....

And all the jokes about “a lyin Kenyan” in the White house… ha ha, so funny. And all the other references to his race, all the memes, all the birther stuff, Donald Trump saying he isn’t American, Joe the Plumber saying “wanting a White Male Republican in the White House doesn’t make you racist, it just makes you an “merican”

Yeah. It’s just “saying you disagree with his policies” that causes you to be labeled racist. Not all that other crap. *GIANT EYE ROLL RIGHT HERE*

[skids]

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.



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.”



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.

I have concluded that you really are that dumb. You're not worth my time. You addressed nothing I said in the manner in which I stated it. More twisting on your part. You are beyond help.

BTW, I thought I was going to be "ignored"?????

[skids]

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.



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.



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.



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.

You are twisting two different subjects (again). I said he expressed his religious beliefs (because he was asked). What does that have to do with insulting my boss?

If I insulted my employer, I'd be insulting myself. So, I don't think there is any danger of me firing myself. I'm self employed.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Skids, I'm sure you know by now just what you are dealing with. A man that is educated and able to articulate and compose thoughts into words and paragraphs.

BUT!!!!!!!

Like the man that seemed intelligent until he opened his mouth..........

It's hopeless to have an intelligent discussion with a man that either is actually not intelligent or has a ruling class mentality that is not concerned with other peoples rights, their freedom, and true justice. ie a Communist. An Atheist, and who knows what else. Maybe even a Satanist. lol

[t.nie]

I have concluded that you really are that dumb. You're not worth my time. You addressed nothing I said in the manner in which I stated it. More twisting on your part. You are beyond help.

BTW, I thought I was going to be "ignored"?????

And here we have the classic right winger response-insult the person when you can't refute their arguments with fact and logic.

[t.nie]

You are twisting two different subjects (again). I said he expressed his religious beliefs (because he was asked). What does that have to do with insulting my boss?

If I insulted my employer, I'd be insulting myself. So, I don't think there is any danger of me firing myself. I'm self employed.

You claim you have a problem with people being fired for expressing personal opinions, apparently in your reality there is "a law" that says you cannot be fired for expressing your beliefs. I simply stated you should go to your boss tomorrow and express yourself in a very rude and obnoxious way and see how that "law" worked out for you.

You respond by saying you are self-employed. I guess that's the easy way to avoid tackling the argument or having to justify your claim that there's some special law out there that says you can't be fired for expressing yourself.

You are wrong. There is no law protecting your employment if your boss doesn't like what you say. None. And Phil Robertson was not suspended for his religious beliefs. He was suspended for his offensive statements. Again, see the difference? I doubt it.

The only twisting I see here is you squirming around trying to reinvent your own previous arguments and claiming other people are doing it for you. Couldn't be further from the truth. I am just taking on each and every claim you made head on and factually.

Sorry your arguments don't hold up, but don't try and twist this into "t.nie is misinterpreting my words." No misinterpretation of anything here, just you got it wrong and you don't want to face it.

[t.nie]

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.

In response to this I would only say this-- He married a 16 year old. So no, I don't think someone who already did it is just joking about it. Kinda hard to take his own actions out of context, don't you think?

[skids]

Phil Robertson was not suspended for his religious beliefs. He was suspended for his offensive statements.

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," A&E parent A+E Networks said in a statement obtained by E! News.

Again, HE WAS ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT HIS BELIEFS and he answered it. Is he supposed to lie?

If you really think about it, A & E was even wrong in their statement. Phil's take on life IS reflected in Duck Dynasty! How they can say his beliefs are not reflected in the show is beyond me. I haven't seen them all, but I've not seen any immorality, cursing, sexual content or homosexuality. Seems to me it reflects his views pretty well.

[skids]

In response to this I would only say this-- He married a 16 year old. So no, I don't think someone who already did it is just joking about it. Kinda hard to take his own actions out of context, don't you think?

Oh, I see. You cannot possibly joke about something you've done. That makes perfect sense.

Name me one comedian who hasn't joked about something they have done.

[mudeater18]

In response to this I would only say this-- He married a 16 year old.

Correct, he married a 16 year old Marsha Kay Carroway in 1966.
Now keep these 2 things in mind.
1) Currently he is "still" married to 65 year old Marsha Kay Carroway Robertson.
In 1966 the "median" age of a female to marry was 20.5 years of age compared to 2013 where the median age is 26.5 years while the divorce rate in 1966 was 25%, where today it is well past 50%.
and............
2) 16 year old Marsha Kay Carroway was a "female", not a male.

So, I'll take Phil's old school values of marrying a 16 year old female that he is still married to 48 years later, versus today's progressive values where Phil may be divorced with with kid's growing up in broken or single parent homes, or kid's going to School functions with Dad Phil and Dad Sean.

We have to get away from this "everything is Ok" thinking where we can't hurt anybody's feelings. Sorry, wrong is wrong, and doesn't have to be tolerated.

By the way, the legal age to marry in the state of Louisiana is 16 years old with written parental consent. So why do you say he is wrong ?

[kidrock]

Correct, he married a 16 year old Marsha Kay Carroway in 1966.
Now keep these 2 things in mind.
1) Currently he is "still" married to 65 year old Marsha Kay Carroway Robertson.
In 1966 the "median" age of a female to marry was 20.5 years of age compared to 2013 where the median age is 26.5 years while the divorce rate in 1966 was 25%, where today it is well past 50%.
and............
2) 16 year old Marsha Kay Carroway was a "female", not a male.

So, I'll take Phil's old school values of marrying a 16 year old female that he is still married to 48 years later, versus today's progressive values where Phil may be divorced with with kid's growing up in broken or single parent homes, or kid's going to School functions with Dad Phil and Dad Sean.

We have to get away from this "everything is Ok" thinking where we can't hurt anybody's feelings. Sorry, wrong is wrong, and doesn't have to be tolerated.

By the way, the legal age to marry in the state of Louisiana is 16 years old with written parental consent. So why do you say he is wrong ?

I wonder how many dads out here would really like to see their daughter get married at 16. I sure in heck would not let my daughter get married at 16 if I had a daughter so, how about guys would you?

[mudeater18]

I wonder how dads out here would really like to see their daughter get married at 16. I sure in heck would not let my daughter get married at 16 if I had a daughter so, how about guys would you?

I agree. I have 2 daughters and I wouldn't be on board either. But, no laws were broken in the Phil Robertson's case, yet people want to string him up for it.
And, agree or disagree, the end result is, it seems to be working well for them.

And, don't forget it was Adam & Eve, NOT Adam & Steve !

[kidrock]

I agree. I have 2 daughters and I wouldn't be on board either. But, no laws were broken in the Phil Robertson's case, yet people want to string him up for it.
And, agree or disagree, the end result is, it seems to be working well for them.

And, don't forget it was Adam & Eve, NOT Adam & Steve !

I will give you credit at least you were honest. Yeah I'm not here to tell others how they should live their lives. Yes how could we say anything about Phil and his wife when in fact it has worked out for them. Heck there are people who are in their 20's, 30's,40's and so on and in some cases after 6 months they are divorced.

[LITE-INN]

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.

yes he is does he realize that i some states 16 and your considered an ole lady my cousin who my age is a great great grandmother and she is in her early 60s

[RenatoAubert]

He is a jerk suggesting absurd ideas.