• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Status
Not open for further replies.
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Wrong. Pre- is the time being asked about. Nothing more.

He was speaking of his personal experience of that time. He made no comparison.

Your assertions are nothing more than the product of biased convoluted thoughts.

The more I read that part, the more I think Phil was mocking Magary.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Wrong. He made no comparison. He answered a question of a specific.

Which felt with a time period. He added pre-welfare, which is before now, which is in all ways a comparison. You are factually incorrect.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

It was only by the grace of cruel fate that you are attracted to someone your book deems acceptable. How would you like it if your book insisted that heterosexual relations were sinful and only gay sex was holy? Would you just roll with it? "Piece of cake. Just do as instructed by God's word"? Or would you be disgusted by the options and have sex with women on the down-low?

It's quite nice to be in synch with the majority. Too bad so few people understand how fortunate they are.

First of all I don't have a book and what you posted has nothing to do with what I posted.

I was talking about you purposely not understanding what Phil Robertson said, but rather what you think he said.

There seems to be a huge gap there, but you don't want to see it. That is your choice.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

You're just wrong on that. It's clear for any unbiased eye to see.

Oh, btw, it's not about what he heard. He may have closed his ears with his mind. It's about the reality if the time.

He was 8 years old. How much does an 8 year old understand over and beyond what he sees.

How can you say he is wrong about the blues when you don't know what he was talking about?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

He was 8 years old. How much does an 8 year old understand over and beyond what he sees.

How can you say he is wrong about the blues when you don't know what he was talking about?

Boo makes a lot up on the fly, then when called on it, he either tries to say that he didn't say what he said, or he plays stupid games of semantics to deflect that can last for literally pages.

For instance, the part of the faux outrage, of Phil's comments, dealing with "pre/post entitlement" is pure bunk. Phil clearly starts his answer on that by restating the absurd trick question by the dishonest reporter Magary. Phil clearly says, "YOU SAY" so the rest can only be construed as a mocking overstatement. But, libs just want to conflate, smear, and attack anyone with Christian faith.

See calamity and her response to me and others. She tried to pass off to me that she studies the bible, while addressing you she refers to it as "your book"... It is all so dishonest.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Given the choice between sex with a man and celibacy the choice would be pretty easy. But then if I thought that there was absolutely nothing wrong with having sex with a man as a man then the choice of whether or not to be Christian would be pretty easy as well. Being Christian is voluntary.




I'm not telling a gay person to be straight. Your argument falls apart from there.




If I was very determined in my belief that married, lifetime-monogamous heterosexual sex was good and not a sin then I would not ascribe to a religion that said otherwise. If I believed that the religion that said that married, lifetime-monogamous heterosexual sex was a sin was the righteous path set forth by God then I would battle my own personal desires in order to try and walk the righteous path.

In other words, I'd be about the same but fighting different urges.



You seriously doubt a great many things you are in fact wholly ignorant about, I find. I also really hope that is a typo and you really meant to type "their people" because that would be hilarious.
I actually meant to write "these people".

I get your point. If you want to be gay, you can't be "Christian". I'm cool with you all drawing a line with who can join your club. Btw, that's why I reject the American Christian Movement. IMO, you all are not Christ-like.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

He was 8 years old. How much does an 8 year old understand over and beyond what he sees.

How can you say he is wrong about the blues when you don't know what he was talking about?

He wasn't eight when he spoke in the interview. Many have lived long enough to know that their experiences are shadows at best of the larger world. Even at eight we can see the struggles of others. And certainly at his age he should know that such questions are more complex than can be answered in such an interview. Had he been wiser, less colored by bias, he'd have answered more cautiously, more reflective.

But all we have is what he actually said today.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Boo makes a lot up on the fly, then when called on it, he either tries to say that he didn't say what he said, or he plays stupid games of semantics to deflect that can last for literally pages.

For instance, the part of the faux outrage, of Phil's comments, dealing with "pre/post entitlement" is pure bunk. Phil clearly starts his answer on that by restating the absurd trick question by the dishonest reporter Magary. Phil clearly says, "YOU SAY" so the rest can only be construed as a mocking overstatement. But, libs just want to conflate, smear, and attack anyone with Christian faith.

See calamity and her response to me and others. She tried to pass off to me that she studies the bible, while addressing you she refers to it as "your book"... It is all so dishonest.

Quite whining. Your inability to address what is actually said us your problem. Period.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

First of all I don't have a book and what you posted has nothing to do with what I posted.

I was talking about you purposely not understanding what Phil Robertson said, but rather what you think he said.

There seems to be a huge gap there, but you don't want to see it. That is your choice.

Condemning the actions of consenting adults is petty, made even worse when invoking the name of God.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

I actually meant to write "these people".

I get your point. If you want to be gay, you can't be "Christian". I'm cool with you all drawing a line with who can join your club. Btw, that's why I reject the American Christian Movement. IMO, you all are not Christ-like.


Someone can be gay and be a Christian. You just conveniently ignore about 95% of what Christians actually say in order to fit them into your caricature. It's really a prerequisite as a Christian to be a sinner. If you don't believe you are a sinner then Christianity really has nothing for you.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

I've never seen the show, but here's my perspective.

A&E are idiots. They've painted themselves in to a corner.

Never even seen the show, but ONE look at that man and I can tell you he doesn't give a **** what anyone thinks of him. He's an old ass man, and he's gonna say what he wants to say. He's not apologizing for anything.

I don't think he gives a damn if they ever do a show again, one way or the other.

So A&E painted themselves in to a corner. Either they cancel the show and give up all that revenue, or they reinstate him with their tail between their legs, and now they've pissed off all the gays and libs.

A&E.... amateur hour. LULZ.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Someone can be gay and be a Christian. You just conveniently ignore about 95% of what Christians actually say in order to fit them into your caricature. It's really a prerequisite as a Christian to be a sinner. If you don't believe you are a sinner then Christianity really has nothing for you.

Somebody can also be a serial killer and be a Christian.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Someone can be gay and be a Christian. You just conveniently ignore about 95% of what Christians actually say in order to fit them into your caricature. It's really a prerequisite as a Christian to be a sinner. If you don't believe you are a sinner then Christianity really has nothing for you.
Gays can be Christians. Wow. Cool.

So, what's Phil whining about?

Hey...Are Cristians cool with marrying off daughters at 15 and 16? Phil sure is.
A good woman is “hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry ‘em. Look, you wait till they get to be about 20 years old, they only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they’re 15 or 16, they’ll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course.” — Speaking at Sportsmen’s Ministry in Georgia in 2009.
LA Times
There are a couple more gems in that link up there which are even better. Glad too see you Christians hitching your wagon to such a righteous SOB. Suh-weet.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Gays can be Christians. Wow. Cool.

So, what's Phil whining about?

Hey...Are Cristians cool with marrying off daughters at 15 and 16? Phil sure is.

There are a couple more gems in that link up there which are even better. Glad too see you Christians hitching your wagon to such a righteous SOB. Suh-weet.

I'm glad you're at least being honest about your opinion of "us Christians." ;)
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Condemning the actions of consenting adults is petty, made even worse when invoking the name of God.

Please show me where I condemned anything other than you inability to understand what was said.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

I've never seen the show, but here's my perspective.

A&E are idiots. They've painted themselves in to a corner.

Never even seen the show, but ONE look at that man and I can tell you he doesn't give a **** what anyone thinks of him. He's an old ass man, and he's gonna say what he wants to say. He's not apologizing for anything.

I don't think he gives a damn if they ever do a show again, one way or the other.

So A&E painted themselves in to a corner. Either they cancel the show and give up all that revenue, or they reinstate him with their tail between their legs, and now they've pissed off all the gays and libs.

A&E.... amateur hour. LULZ.

And with that understanding doesn't this whole thing seem like a publicity stunt.

A lot more people now know his name, the name of the show, and that A&E actually exists.

I do agree with you in that I don't think he cares what any of these people think. No smart person would.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Which felt with a time period. He added pre-welfare, which is before now, which is in all ways a comparison. You are factually incorrect.
You should pay better attention to what was said.

"Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy?"

So again.

Do you not understand that he is repeating the question back?

What do you think,"you say" means.

He was repeating the question back to the person.


He was speaking of his personal experience of the specific time period asked about.
He made no comparison.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

The mistake here in our liberals of the forum's thinking is the same mistake the biased author of the article makes, and puts IN his article....From the GQ article on the opening page the author starts off painting a picture of a backwoods redneck, that he obviously doesn't understand, and in fact looks down on for his way of life....He starts the article saying this....

"How in the world did a family of squirrel-eating, Bible-thumping, catchphrase-spouting duck hunters become the biggest TV stars in America?"

squirrel eating? bible thumping?

Both of these descriptors are used to paint a negative picture of rural Americans, or people of faith. Then in the next sentence of the article Magary extends his confused slur to the general viewership of the show by describing those who watch as:

"And what will they do now that they have 14 million fervent disciples?"

"fervent disciples" is used to describe them IMO, to paint the picture of extremists could be the only people tuning in.
It's insulting to say the least, but don't let our feathers get ruffled, we don't have that right according to leftists that distort, dissemble, and twist his words in the article, all for the sake of manufacturing a contrived controversy.

In the opening plate setting load of Bull that this Magary sets up is this one....

"Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one:

“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.”

Perhaps we’ll be needing that seat belt after all."

Is this guy for real? Oh, so witty...."there's no stopping them" He's the goddamn interviewer for Christ sake, he set him up to hear what Robertson had to say, and knew what he would say on this, then the "Perhaps we'll be needing that seat belt..." comment is just crap, what a tool.

As for what Phil said there, he only said that HE prefers women....But in Magary's mind that is wrong, and can't understand obviously how someone could be heterosexual. He's an idiot.

Then just the next paragraph down he set's Phil up to be a southern bigot as well by asking him what he thought of living in the south during the civil rights era....But he doesn't show the question/answer as an honest reporter would do, instead, he has his answer, and with editorial licence chop's it up to say, or imply what HE (Magary) wants to get across about Phil:

"Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“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.”

This comment was inserted in the middle of describing how Phil went to LouTech, and dropped out giving his QB spot to Terry Bradshaw...So, what it's relevance was to begin with is not clear, unless you know that the article was a hit piece aimed at painting this guy as some sort of Racist/Homophobe/Redneck.

It is Magary who inserted the "Pre civil rights" tag to the comment, NOT Phil. And Phil makes it clear that his experience was what HE saw with his own eyes, not the overall movement, and treatment of the times....

All this is, are liberals using this article designed to deliver a manufactured outrage into the lap of those special interest groups like GLAAD, and HRC that they knew would get all flustered over the mere mention that someone is heterosexual, instead of gay, and they succeeded.

How dumb that liberals can't read in context, or look at the interview with fairness in what is quote, and what is added to stir them up....IOW, a real lack of critical thinking on their part...

I've been reading Magary's stuff for years, and you haven't the first clue what you're talking about regarding his "biases".
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Gays can be Christians. Wow. Cool.

So, what's Phil whining about?

Phil listed a litany of biblical sins in that interview, one of them happened to be the progressive dog whistle of the moment.

Hey...Are Cristians cool with marrying off daughters at 15 and 16? Phil sure is.

There are a couple more gems in that link up there which are even better. Glad too see you Christians hitching your wagon to such a righteous SOB. Suh-weet.

So if I agree with Robertson on one thing you think that means I have to agree with Robertson on all things? Age of consent in the US is predominantly 16 years of age (30 states), which is the age Phil married Miss Kay, so I suppose it's preferable that they are married, at least. Having sex at 16 is more objectionable to me than the getting married at 16, though, by a wide margin.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Somebody can also be a serial killer and be a Christian.

Well yeah, that's certainly an extension of what I said.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

I'm glad you're at least being honest about your opinion of "us Christians." ;)

It's easy because you all are not followers of Christ. You call yourselves Christians, but you follow something much darker than love. They follow an ugly ideal; they snort at sinners; most look down on the poor, actually blame them for their poverty, argue to deny immigrants healthcare and a place to live, and enough of the American Christians are racists that I suspect a large segment of the American Christian movement is little different than the KKK, just without the sheets or the need to set fire to crosses.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Please show me where I condemned anything other than you inability to understand what was said.

I thought we were talking about Phil Robertson and the verbal assaults on Homosexuals by Christians in general. Why are you taking things so damned personal??
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

1. Phil listed a litany of biblical sins in that interview, one of them happened to be the progressive dog whistle of the moment.

2. So if I agree with Robertson on one thing you think that means I have to agree with Robertson on all things? Age of consent in the US is predominantly 16 years of age (30 states), which is the age Phil married Miss Kay, so I suppose it's preferable that they are married, at least. Having sex at 16 is more objectionable to me than the getting married at 16, though, by a wide margin.
1. In one of these "Phil Threads", I've been pretty busy arguing another "dog whistle" remark of his with Excon. You know, the one where Blacks were happier before they had a right to vote and drink from public water fountains.

As shown in my link, Phil is full of little ideas. Isn't he? I'm glad the Right Wing finds his comments worth defending. It's mighty Christian of them to defend hate speech while ignoring the plight of the poor. Hey, maybe the RW will be so busy defending haters now, they won't have time to try taking away poor people's healthcare again.


2.Robertson is a hater using the words in the Bible to justify his bigoted nonsense. Too bad you fail to see it.

This is a rant of a madman:
LAT article said:
"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." -- Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.
 
Last edited:
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

You know, the one where Blacks were happier before they had a right to vote and drink from public water fountains.

The mid-1800s? I don't believe he commented about the mid-1800s (and you know he didn't).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom