Duck Dynasty

Doc Who said:
U R correct big bird. They will make tons of money. But not from me. "get the message of Christian faith and family out there." Racism, bigotry and intolerance. Those R his good Christian and family values.
Those comedians R already having the last laugh.

http://www.gossipcop.com/phil-robertson-jon-stewart-duck-dynasty-colbert-report-video/
Click to expand...

You don't have the first clue, as usual! The Robertsons get the last laugh on you and the idiot comedians. That's the way it's gonna be.
 




Man For All Seasons said:
Oh, boy! Now you are either dishonest or suffering from memory loss.

And, no everyone shouldn't have to follow the law if its a bogus law at odds with the Constitution. So babbling about "the law" provides you no refuge. The issue is the principles involved. Not what law may be on the books at a particular point in time. Laws come and go. If justice is served then unconstitutional laws are taken off the books. Regardless local ordinances at odds with the Bill of rights don't impress me. If they impress you, then I feel sorry for you.

The point is that you are hypocritical in your application of this wonderful concept of economic freedom you've stumbled upon.
Click to expand...

Dig it out and show me where I said that. You conveniently manufacture quotes that suit you. On the cake idea I supported the baker (having once owned a restaurant) but pointed out that there ARE federal laws that might impinge. Those laws trump my opinion. Not MY laws, federal laws. I barely even remember the New Mexico thing. I think you think the whole world is a conspiracy and you are the 'perfect one'.
 




Vagitarian said:
Dig it out and show me where I said that. You conveniently manufacture quotes that suit you. On the cake idea I supported the baker (having once owned a restaurant) but pointed out that there ARE federal laws that might impinge. Those laws trump my opinion. Not MY laws, federal laws. I barely even remember the New Mexico thing. I think you think the whole world is a conspiracy and you are the 'perfect one'.
Click to expand...

Hold on, buddy! Lets get some things straight right now. I don't misrepresent your positions intentionally or through carelessness.

You were all over the place on those threads and again, I don't care about what laws are on the books. I care about what your position is, regardless of the law and you would never stake out a consistent and logical position. I don't even think that the laws in question were federal. I think they were local or state
Statutes.

I'm not perfect just capable of going where the facts, morality and logic lead.
 








Vagitarian said:
In order:
1) ~T~ was the one who schooled us all on what law applied to the restaurant case. As a former owner of 3 restaurants, I'm completely behind people serving whoever they want but also know that refusal has to be within the law. If she sees this, maybe she'll school us again.
2) I personally would never deny anyone based on race, religion OR sexual persuasion. As for Robertson, he SHOULD be able to say what he wants. As for A & E, they SHOULD be able to cancel a performer for whatever they want. Both are freedom of speech. They just happen to conflict.
3) This reminds me of Charlie Sheen's Adonis & Tiger Blood thing. Do you really think anyone gives an honest rat's ass about either guy? they've got more money than god himself.
Click to expand...

In order:

1) T didn't school anyone, least of all me. I schooled the two of you about how the Constitution trumps state and local statutes. That was the lesson to be learned but I've got really poor students.

2) regardless of legalities, it is morally wrong for A&E to go after Robertson for exercising his first amendment rights. What A&E is doing is hardly tolerant and yet that is what we constantly hear from the supporters of gay rights. At best, A&E is being hypocritical.

3) Yeah, I think lots of people care about Phil because he's a positive influence instead of being a moral degenerate like Charlie.

He's where you are missing it. Neither the baker nor the photographer were refusing to engage in general commerce with homosexuals. What they refused to do is engage in commerce directly related to gay weddings. Big difference. Being involved in gay weddings goes against their deeply held religious beliefs and being compelled to by the force of misguided local or state statutes deprives them of their First Amendment Freedom of Worship rights. It is nothing but out and out tyranny to force someone to do something like this against their conscious. That's why we have a constitution in the first place. This is not like merely refusing to serve someone who walks into your restaurant just because they are gay or black or whatever. By the way, gay is not an immutable characteristic. Ask Ann Heche.

Thus endeth the lesson. Consider yourself schooled!
 




Vagitarian said:
Man For All Seasons said:
In order:

1) T didn't school anyone, least of all me. I schooled the two of you about how the Constitution trumps state and local statutes. That was the lesson to be learned but I've got really poor students.

You don't HAVE any students, least of all here. The only person here who 'gets what you're saying' is your parrot, AM4E.

2) regardless of legalities, it is morally wrong for A&E to go after Robertson for exercising his first amendment rights.
Moral, schmoral. A & E saying 'your fired' is as much freedom of speech as whatever Robertson did. Do you think we now have 'morals courts?' LOL!

At best, A&E is being hypocritical.
It 'may' be hypocritical but there's no law agin it.

3) Yeah, I think lots of people care about Phil because he's a positive influence instead of being a moral degenerate like Charlie.
He was an admitted 'moral degenerate' just like Charlie' and he reached for a crutch and I'm happy he found one that worked. If he's so fucking well liked, let him get a better offer. He's got millions anyway. I personally don't give a shit what he thinks about anything - one way or another.

He's where you are missing it. Neither the baker nor the photographer were refusing to engage in general commerce with homosexuals. What they refused to do is engage in commerce directly related to gay weddings. Big difference. Being involved in gay weddings goes against their deeply held religious beliefs and being compelled to by the force of misguided local or state statutes deprives them of their First Amendment Freedom of Worship rights. It is nothing but out and out tyranny to force someone to do something like this against their conscious. That's why we have a constitution in the first place. This is not like merely refusing to serve someone who walks into your restaurant just because they are gay or black or whatever. By the way, gay is not an immutable characteristic. Ask Ann Heche. It's a freedom to do whatever the fuck you want to do. Some people are celibate, some are bisexual, some are heterosexual.

We have a constitution to decide what kind of weddings you can or can't support? You get funnier by the minute.

Here's where you aren't getting it. I don't now and never did give a shit about the baker OR the photographer. I also don't give a fuck who kisses who or who fucks who. Last I heard it was a free country.
Click to expand...


LOL! I know I can chalk up another one when I've caused you to get this unhinged. You've got no argument, just a rant.

Bottom line is that is is a free country, but freedom does not mean license and immorality. We have freedom of religion ie freedom of conscious. That is what is enshrined in the constitution not the right to act sexually like an animal.
Click to expand...
 




Man For All Seasons said:
Vagitarian said:
LOL! I know I can chalk up another one when I've caused you to get this unhinged. You've got no argument, just a rant.

Bottom line is that is is a free country, but freedom does not mean license and immorality. We have freedom of religion ie freedom of conscious. That is what is enshrined in the constitution not the right to act sexually like an animal.
Click to expand...

You're the one ranting, here's sumpin' for ya - quack, quack ! :cool:
http://www.tpnn.com/2013/12/21/new-...dynasty-merchandise-featuring-phil-robertson/
Click to expand...
 




Vagitarian said:
Man For All Seasons said:
You're the one ranting, here's sumpin' for ya - quack, quack ! :cool:
http://www.tpnn.com/2013/12/21/new-...dynasty-merchandise-featuring-phil-robertson/
Click to expand...

Once again, I accept your concession. You don't have to keep beating yourself up! LOL!

Thanks for the info, I'll remember not to support Cracker Barrel. They are too stupid to deserve my business. But as usual, you miss the main point. You watch to see how his merchandise sales are gonna jump in the coming weeks.

You remember, Chik-fil-a day? Yep, those of us with good sense and Christian morals will support Phil to the max. Meanwhile if A&E doesn't wise up, they are about to see big revenue loss!

Any way you slice it, Phil is gonna be the big winner.

Now off to your room to study. You've got a lesson to learn!!!
Click to expand...
 




Man For All Seasons said:
In order:

1) T didn't school anyone, least of all me. I schooled the two of you about how the Constitution trumps state and local statutes. That was the lesson to be learned but I've got really poor students.

2) regardless of legalities, it is morally wrong for A&E to go after Robertson for exercising his first amendment rights. What A&E is doing is hardly tolerant and yet that is what we constantly hear from the supporters of gay rights. At best, A&E is being hypocritical.

3) Yeah, I think lots of people care about Phil because he's a positive influence instead of being a moral degenerate like Charlie.

He's where you are missing it. Neither the baker nor the photographer were refusing to engage in general commerce with homosexuals. What they refused to do is engage in commerce directly related to gay weddings. Big difference. Being involved in gay weddings goes against their deeply held religious beliefs and being compelled to by the force of misguided local or state statutes deprives them of their First Amendment Freedom of Worship rights. It is nothing but out and out tyranny to force someone to do something like this against their conscious. That's why we have a constitution in the first place. This is not like merely refusing to serve someone who walks into your restaurant just because they are gay or black or whatever. By the way, gay is not an immutable characteristic. Ask Ann Heche.

Thus endeth the lesson. Consider yourself schooled!
Click to expand...

Freedom of Speech is NOT Absolute-- there are exceptions even in the media--ie. slander. The idiots on Faux news keep babbling on about how he has a right to say what he wants--- he doesn't. I just can't believe a "news" network would not even look into the legalities into the 1st Amendment.
The 1st amendment was written so that the Govt would not interfere in Freedom of Speech and Religion. Good god, quit spewing out legal facts that are so inaccurate.
 




Man For All Seasons said:
Of course not! One can't make a rational argument that he should be.
Click to expand...

Well considering he is paid by A&E, I am sure there is something written in their long book of company policies against bigotry and representing the company according to their morals and standards etc etc. and as such was violated , then there is just cause for termination.
 




Just remember, the Duck Dynasty guy, who likened homosexuality to bestiality, makes a living helping people trick ducks into thinking they want to fuck them.

Nuff said?
 




tinkrbelle said:
Freedom of Speech is NOT Absolute-- there are exceptions even in the media--ie. slander. The idiots on Faux news keep babbling on about how he has a right to say what he wants--- he doesn't. I just can't believe a "news" network would not even look into the legalities into the 1st Amendment.
The 1st amendment was written so that the Govt would not interfere in Freedom of Speech and Religion. Good god, quit spewing out legal facts that are so inaccurate.
Click to expand...

It's not the folks at Fox who are the idiots in this situation. He does have a right to say what he said. Nobody has said that freedom of speech is absolute but there has been quite a movement in recent years to try to shut down the speech
of people like Robertson through political correctness and intimidation. A&E stirred all this up by acting like a fool.

My legal facts have been quite accurate as is your statement on the first amendment. What I'm concerned about is principle and the appropriate and consistent application of that principle.

Is it gonna be live and let live and everyone speak their mind without undue worry about their jobs or not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:




tinkrbelle said:
Well considering he is paid by A&E, I am sure there is something written in their long book of company policies against bigotry and representing the company according to their morals and standards etc etc. and as such was violated , then there is just cause for termination.
Click to expand...

You may be correct but it doesn't make their policy rational or moral and if they enforce their policy they are stupid puppets of the GAYstapo.

And for the record bigotry language won't apply because what he said cannot rationally be construed as bigoted.

But let's get you on the record because I'm sure you wouldn't want to be guilty of hypocrisy or inconsistency so you'd be fine if a company dismissed an employee because they expressed pro-gay sentiments, right? I mean there's probably something in the contract that could be used as the basis for dismissal right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:












Man For All Seasons said:
Just more proof that you don't have a grip and I was right all along.

He said nothing wrong about blacks. He was giving his experience and his perception. HE is the expert on that. Not you.
Click to expand...

I agree, he was relaying his experience when he described them as happy. However, calling himself white trash in order to make himself on the same level as the blacks that he worked with - not relaying an experience - that's explaining how he thinks, which was a dumb thing to do.

And why can't you discuss a subject without putting people down? Why can't you just disagree without telling me to get a grip? Is it because I am a woman?

Please elaborate.
 




Fucktard said:
I agree, he was relaying his experience when he described them as happy. However, calling himself white trash in order to make himself on the same level as the blacks that he worked with - not relaying an experience - that's explaining how he thinks, which was a dumb thing to do.

And why can't you discuss a subject without putting people down? Why can't you just disagree without telling me to get a grip? Is it because I am a woman?

Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Not because you are a woman but because you are correct. But lets get back to the statement that Blacks were happy back then. Sure they were happy. Hell, they had their own water fountains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:"...th_century_with_african-american_drinking.jpg

By the way, I like the term "colored". Aren't we all colored?
 
Last edited:
















You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back