• 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]

Pre=before. Yes time period. Jim Crow compared to welfare. Time period. He said happier during the time if Jim Crow than post welfare. This is a comparison. It's also clear and simple understanding of language.
He answered as to his personal experience of the time. He made no comparison.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Free Will?

You obviously do not understand homosexuality. Gays are not attracted to those of the opposite sex. Free will is not at play here. A homosexual has but two choices: be celibate or "sin". Why would god put a human being (millions of them, actually) in that position? Choose: no sex or be condemned to hell.

Yes, it is free will to act on your urges. We are all filled with urges to act in ways the Bible says we shouldn't. If you are a Christian the only real requirement is to accept that you shouldn't be doing them and work very hard to stop doing it and repent your sins. Nobody is ever free of urges that would be a sin to satisfy. Homosexual Christians are not unique in that regard at all.

You, Phil and the rest of your ilk, people who are not living with a condition which leaves someone attracted only to those of the same sex, without having any idea of what the hell you are talking about, is disgusting.

Most people know exactly what it is like to want nothing more than to have sex with someone that they can never have sex with. I think there are just a lot of sadly shallow people that can't imagine a life that doesn't include sex.

It's abhorrent, the height of arrogance. Maybe someday you'll find out the hard way just how wrong you and your ilk really are. I hope not, but I suspect being hit over the head by the reality hammer will be the only way you'll learn.

Nobody is forcing anyone to be a Christian or follow the teachings of the Bible, but if they want to be a Christian they are kind of bound by the rules of the tome on which the religion relies. Nobody will be able to follow it all the time, everyone will sin. The only requirement is that you accept that your sins are actually sins. Fighting your personal urges is very hard, and you won't always be successful, but rationalizing them to the point that you feel free to indulge them is really not the Christian plan, or what Jesus taught.

All I am here to do is to point out to you where in the Bible it says the things you try very hard to pretend it doesn't say. You say Jesus is your pastor and then play ignorant to the one document on Earth wherein Jesus preaches to you.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

He answered as to his personal experience of the time. He made no comparison.

I think somewhere deep in their heart they all know this. It's there in black and white. Unfortunately the insanely intolerant left can't even take words at face value anymore and will always insert their own bullsh** interpretation of what they think someone meant in order to justify their rage.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

I think somewhere deep in their heart they all know this. It's there in black and white. Unfortunately the insanely intolerant left can't even take words at face value anymore and will always insert their own bullsh** interpretation of what they think someone meant in order to justify their rage.

I think it has to do with the state of education in the US.

People, for whatever reason, consciously don't want to understand what is on the page.

Reading comprehension was part of my education, but I think that has been lost somewhere.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Yes, it is free will to act on your urges. We are all filled with urges to act in ways the Bible says we shouldn't. If you are a Christian the only real requirement is to accept that you shouldn't be doing them and work very hard to stop doing it and repent your sins. Nobody is ever free of urges that would be a sin to satisfy. Homosexual Christians are not unique in that regard at all.
A married man resisting the urge to boink the redhead in the office next door is not quite the same as a homosexual trying to live all his/her life not being able to have sex at all or being forced to have sex with a woman/man. It would be like forcing a straight man to have sex with other men. You want that? Do you even understand that?



Most people know exactly what it is like to want nothing more than to have sex with someone that they can never have sex with. I think there are just a lot of sadly shallow people that can't imagine a life that doesn't include sex.
I think that there are shallow people who have no idea what they are talking about. Like I said, being gay and told to be straight is like if someone told you that you must now only have sex with other men or live celibate. It's not being denied sex with Ann Margret ot Raquel Welsch.

Nobody is forcing anyone to be a Christian or follow the teachings of the Bible, but if they want to be a Christian they are kind of bound by the rules of the tome on which the religion relies. Nobody will be able to follow it all the time, everyone will sin. The only requirement is that you accept that your sins are actually sins. Fighting your personal urges is very hard, and you won't always be successful, but rationalizing them to the point that you feel free to indulge them is really not the Christian plan, or what Jesus taught.

All I am here to do is to point out to you where in the Bible it says the things you try very hard to pretend it doesn't say. You say Jesus is your pastor and then play ignorant to the one document on Earth wherein Jesus preaches to you.
Again. Imagine yourself in an alternate world where opposite sex couples were considered sinful, and you had to either have gay butt sex or live life with no one. How would you feel, especially if some Homo told you you were a sinner just for thinking of some sexy woman?

I seriously doubt you have even the remotest idea what there people go through, which is why you anger me so much when you get on your high horse.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

:naughty
You explain how it was.
I did. You're the one who called it wrong. Therefore, the onus to explain is on you.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Do you see anywhere in that the words "than now"?
Of course you don't. So stop making things up.

He was relating his personal experience of the time.
Nothing more.
The words "than now"? Pre-entitlement pre-welfare is being compared to the time of entitlement and welfare. He is clearly comparing then to now. Hence, his comment clearly states they were happier then than now.

Your argument has just moved from absurd to the outright disingenuous.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

I think it has to do with the state of education in the US.

People, for whatever reason, consciously don't want to understand what is on the page.

Reading comprehension was part of my education, but I think that has been lost somewhere.

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

I think it has to do with the state of education in the US.

People, for whatever reason, consciously don't want to understand what is on the page.

Reading comprehension was part of my education, but I think that has been lost somewhere.


I think when they truly believe some text says what it doesn't actually say it might be reading comprehension. Lord knows the flavor of mistake has bitten my ass a few times. But with the left it goes beyond that. When confronted with the truth that something doesn't say what they thought it said they double down on the stupid and change their object to what they "meant" rater than what they said. At that point they are tilting at windmills.

"The German" was a classic example of this. When confronted with the fact that someone didn't actually say they wanted to murder homosexuals like he said they did he decided that, well, they were Christian so obviously they really wanted to murder homosexuals even if they didn't say they did.

It is irrational emotionalism is what it is. People no longer deal in right and wrong, they deal in what feels right and what feels wrong. If they feel that someone wants to murder homosexuals then they will feel that is the subtext of everything that person says.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

I did. You're the one who called it wrong. Therefore, the onus to explain is on you.
No you didn't.
The onus is on you to support your claim. Not on me to prove it wrong.
 
Last edited:
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

The words "than now"? Pre-entitlement pre-welfare is being compared to the time of entitlement and welfare. He is clearly comparing then to now. Hence, his comment clearly states they were happier then than now.

Your argument has just moved from absurd to the outright disingenuous.
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.
 
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.
nonsense.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

No you didn't.
The onus is on you to support yourt claim. Not on me to prove it wrong.

Fine. I did that. You didn't. Thus. I am right. You are not.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Fine. I did that. You didn't. Thus. I am right. You are not.
And again. No you did not.
Nor could you.

So stop telling untruths.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

And again. No you did not.
Nor could you.

So stop telling untruths.
THe only untruth is you pretending Phil did not compare then to now.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

nonsense.
Yes that is the word nonsense.
It applies to your postings in regard to this topic.
You are 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.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

THe only untruth is you pretending Phil did not compare then to now.
Besides you being wrong ...

There was no comparison made.
You can show no comparison.
He was asked about a specific period of time. He answered to the question. No comparison was made.
Your assertions are nothing more than the product of biased convoluted thoughts
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

A married man resisting the urge to boink the redhead in the office next door is not quite the same as a homosexual trying to live all his/her life not being able to have sex at all or being forced to have sex with a woman/man. It would be like forcing a straight man to have sex with other men. You want that? Do you even understand that?

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 think that there are shallow people who have no idea what they are talking about. Like I said, being gay and told to be straight is like if someone told you that you must now only have sex with other men or live celibate. It's not being denied sex with Ann Margret ot Raquel Welsch.

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


Again. Imagine yourself in an alternate world where opposite sex couples were considered sinful, and you had to either have gay butt sex or live life with no one. How would you feel, especially if some Homo told you you were a sinner just for thinking of some sexy woman?

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.

I seriously doubt you have even the remotest idea what there people go through, which is why you anger me so much when you get on your high horse.

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

He answered as to his personal experience of the time. He made no comparison.

He did both. Likely through the lenses of his owns bias. He was factually wrong concerning the blues. But he make a clear comparison between that time and pre-welfare. He states it clearly.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

He did both. Likely through the lenses of his owns bias. He was factually wrong concerning the blues. But he make a clear comparison between that time and pre-welfare. He states it clearly.
You are seeing things.
He clearly makes no comparison.

And you have no idea about what he heard or not.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

You are seeing things.
He clearly makes no comparison.

And you have no idea about what he heard or not.

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

Yes that is the word nonsense.
It applies to your postings in regard to this topic.
You are 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.

No it is not - you are wrong again.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

You are seeing things.
He clearly makes no comparison.

And you have no idea about what he heard or not.

Snort - nor do you!
 
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.
Wrong. He made no comparison. He answered a question of a specific time. Nothing more.





No it is not - you are wrong again.
Holy ****!
Reading comprehension problems as well. Figures.

You are wrong.
No comparison was made.
Pre- was the time being asked about. Nothing more.

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


And you have no idea about what he heard or not.
Snort - nor do you!
:doh
You are on a roll of being wrong.
iLOL

I know what he said.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights

'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights'

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "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.”

Before the civil rights movement of the 1950s, Jim Crow laws enforced a system of subjugating African-Americans in the South by upholding racial barriers for years after the Emancipation Proclamation. The cultural climate in the Southern states was one of "disenfranchisement, segregation and various forms of oppression, including race-inspired violence," History.com notes.

~~~SNIP~~~~

The Human Rights Campaign and the NAACP wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E, expressing deep concern over Robertson's remarks:

We want to be clear why Phil Robertson’s remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn’t see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street. And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science. In fact, it’s important to note that every single leading medical organization in the country has said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being [lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender] -- it’s not a choice, and to suggest otherwise is dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom