"Duck Dynasty"...is our freedom of speech being stifled?
Quote: Beethoven9thBTW, what if Phil Robertson said this to a gay kid at his church:
"The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it."
Do you consider this offensive??
I would tell Mr Robertson that you should never assume that somebody is coming to church to solve a problem.
I would tell Mr Robertson to mind his own business. A church is a place of worship. Its a place to be respectful of everybody. Its a place people go to worship God. Not to accuse somebody of having a problem.
Its the -I'm OK you are not OK- Philosophy of the discussion that is offensive. The problem with the statement is assuming there is a problem when there is not a problem.
Quote: LarrySAgain its not A&E thats up in arms because of the comment. A&E is up in arms because their advertisers are pissed because some of the people who buy the advertisers products are pissed. Its not just gay people that stand to stop buying their products. Its the friends and reatives of gay people. Its the people who have no personal gay friends /relatives but sympathize with their plight. Its alot of people that were ticked off.
So if yo ask why A&E is all up in arms? Because all their customers(sponsors) are up in arms.
I did not say they were up in arms...just that they acted like they did not know that Phil had these views. They knew. They had to know that his views would cause problems among people who would not like them--there is no way they could not have known that.
I didn't see any evidence of huge advertiser issues; just a threat that a group would seek to influence advertisers to quit supporting the show. The advertiser mentioned most often in the articles I have read SUPPORTS his right to speak, if not necessarily his position. A&E decided to pull the plug on him without actually seeing how things played out.
The people who are objecting didn't watch the show and they were not seeing the advertisements on the show.
Quote: TwirdmanAre you kidding the right has been doing it for years. They boycotted JC Penny for having Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesman, they boycott plenty of channels for showing things they disagree with, and they've boycotted stores for saying happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas.
Are you kidding me? Those were hardly big time boycotts. The left is the king of boycotts.
Sure, you can find a few conservative individuals and organizations who boycott this, that & the other (I never claimed otherwise), but like I said, these are not high profile events that involve the whole of the conservative movement. The one event that did in fact receive widespread conservative support was the Chick Fil A thing, BUT that wasn't an actual boycott.
Keep trying, man. Liberals are the ones who use the boycott because they want to "fight the power". Granted, they've been successful as of late, which is why conservatives need to take a page out of their book.
Quote: terapinedIts the -I'm OK you are not OK- Philosophy of the discussion that is offensive. The problem with the statement is assuming there is a problem when there is not a problem.
So you're saying that you DO consider that statement to be offensive?
Quote: terapinedQuote: Beethoven9thBTW, what if Phil Robertson said this to a gay kid at his church:
"The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it."
Do you consider this offensive??
I would tell Mr Robertson that you should never assume that somebody is coming to church to solve a problem.
I would tell Mr Robertson to mind his own business. A church is a place of worship. Its a place to be respectful of everybody. Its a place people go to worship God. Not to accuse somebody of having a problem.
Its the -I'm OK you are not OK- Philosophy of the discussion that is offensive. The problem with the statement is assuming there is a problem when there is not a problem.
This is very true. Pretend tomarrow that a drug was found that could change your skin color instantly from black to white and had no side effects. Now is someone said , "I realize your black now but it doesn't have to be that way we can fix you and turn you into a fine white man." Everyone would be up in arms about how offensive that sounds and how horrible it is to say that a black man needs to change and become white to be a good upstanding person. Why is it any different for sexual orientation, even if it was a choice which science points to it not being, why is the choice inherently wrong.
Quote: RonCI did not say they were up in arms...just that they acted like they did not know that Phil had these views. They knew. They had to know that his views would cause problems among people who would not like them--there is no way they could not have known that.
I didn't see any evidence of huge advertiser issues; just a threat that a group would seek to influence advertisers to quit supporting the show. The advertiser mentioned most often in the articles I have read SUPPORTS his right to speak, if not necessarily his position. A&E decided to pull the plug on him without actually seeing how things played out.
The people who are objecting didn't watch the show and they were not seeing the advertisements on the show.
when it comes to public advertising driven sales, people can have all the private views they want.
I am sure there were people who quietly knew mel gibson was an antisemite. But they still gave him work. Because it was his provate beliefs and he made them alot of money....and the public didnt know.
well then it all becomes public....and things are a little different.
So it really doesnt matter what "people know" behind the scenes..Its what people DO AND SAY in public that matters.
people on tv can quietly belong to NAMBLA.....but once it becomes public....why couldnt the public react to it by not suppporting them financially.
well after a comment like that its clear thet certain people will stop supporting this show financially.......and its their right...just as people dtopped supporting mel gibson by not supporting him financially. And to mitigate the damage. A&E has made a move. Still the show will suffer because only an idiot would think that the father was the only one with that view.
There is a pond across the street from where I live that always has 10-12 ducks in there. If you sit down, sometimes the baby ducks will come right up to you. Imagine if you had one of those calls and could "talk" with the ducks.
Seems like a whole untapped market to me.
Quote: KeyserFree speech. You're free to basically say what you want, provided that you don't offend a low information voter (democrat).
Blowhards everywhere censor whatever they don't like
*green facepalm*
Quote: WizardI think anybody angry over this should be equally angry about the bible and Christianity.
The world was a fine, fine place before Jesus. Ain't that right, Mike? Jesus taught the goddamn world how they should act. How many less wars do you think there would have been if God had never been invented? I'll tell you how many, Mike. There would have been a ton of more war.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou gotta love liberals. They want Robertson to get fired because they claim he compared homosexuality to beastiality (which he didn't do at all), yet they don't say a damn thing about Obama firing John Podesta (who DID compare Republicans to the Jonestown cult).
I could care less about Robertson. He's a clown. Fired or not fired, I could care less. I am simply defending A and E right to suspend him from the TV show. Say they unsuspend him, do you think I really care, of course not.
A and E has the right to put him back on TV, if they do, I could care less.
This guy is not important, he's a clown. He can say whatever he wants, on tv, not on tv, I could care less.
Quote: terapinedI could care less about Robertson. He's a clown. Fired or not fired, I could care less. I am simply defending A and E right to suspend him from the TV show. Say they unsuspend him, do you think I really care, of course not.
A and E has the right to put him back on TV, if they do, I could care less.
This guy is not important, he's a clown. He can say whatever he wants, on tv, not on tv, I could care less.
LOL...more selective outrage, just like with the (pro-Republican) political polls you love to complain about. I like how you only chime in on issues/people you agree with. And it cracks me up how you completely ignored my point about John Podesta. :D
BTW, you never answered my question about this:
"The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it."
In your opinion, is this remark offensive or not?
Quote: terapinedI could care less about Robertson. He's a clown. Fired or not fired, I could care less. I am simply defending A and E right to suspend him from the TV show. Say they unsuspend him, do you think I really care, of course not.
A and E has the right to put him back on TV, if they do, I could care less.
This guy is not important, he's a clown. He can say whatever he wants, on tv, not on tv, I could care less.
I also defend A&E's decision, and his right to compare homosexuals to zoophiles. I agree with A&E's decision more because homosexuals can make a much, much more logical decision to either have or have not have sex with someone else. The first amendment only protects you from the federal government from "abridging" your speech. It doesn't protect your employment on a private TV network. If A&E changes their mind, that's fine with me too. It's their decision, not anyone else's.
Quote: Beethoven9thLOL...more selective outrage, just like with the (pro-Republican) political polls you love to complain about. I like how you only chime in on issues/people you agree with. And it cracks me up how you completely ignored my point about John Podesta. :D
BTW, you never answered my question about this:
"The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it."
In your opinion, is this remark offensive or not?
I don't believe any poll, pro lib, pro conserva, makes no diff to me. That's why I hate the college football polls. I want a playoff system. All polls suck, political and sports.
Slightly offensive due to assuming a problem when there is no problem.
Are you the President of this clown's fan club? You seem consumed by this clown. Can't enjoy life if he is off tv? For your sake and sanity, hope he gets back on tv.
In my mind, there is no story. Its all BS. Just checked the foxnews website. This story is gigantic over there. They are totally consumed by this. 8 different links on their front web page regarding this non-news story. lol OK I get it B9, you are consumed by this because Fox is consumed by this. Wow, you have been brainwashed by fox. Just cause Fox is consumed by this non news story, you don't have to be. Think for yourself, don't have to follow Fox on every issue.
I do not regularly watch this show (I've seen a couple of episodes), but it seems to me that A&E has done very well with this show as far as ratings.
Most likely they still have several hours of the show already done and ready to go.
Were I the individual making the decisions, I would have left it alone.
The demographic most likely to view DD can safely be labeled as "worlds apart" from the demographic most likely to react to (let alone follow) an interview in a magazine such as GQ.
High ratings (high volume of viewers) attract the advertisers; the advertisers support the network.
Earlier in this thread, it has been implied and stated that A&E's decision is based upon the fact that the advertisers are worried that some viewers are offended to the point that the advertising could have a negative expectation.
I'm not so sure that I completely buy into that.
A major requirement of any advertising is to get your product in front of the audience most apt to purchase that type of product. Once it has been determined the product is compatible with the audience, capture as much an audience as possible. Todays executives (both the networks and the ad agencies) seem to focus more on total viewers while almost completely forgetting the concept of compatibility.
I still remember raising my daughter; stations such as Disney channel, cartoon network, etc. were the big things for her. Seems like every commercial was the latest toys, kids clubs and attractions, etc. It was like the Christmas shopping season 365 days/year (I'm certainly glad those days are over!).
Watch the soaps during the day? There's a reason they're called "soap operas". The products featured in the commercials are designed to capture the attention of the type of viewer most likely to be watching that type of show during that time.
You better believe that the most effective time slot for an Autozone commercial is during a NASCAR race or any other autosport.
If you're a fast food chain wanting to run a commercial, buying a time slot on the outdoor channel may not be the most effective way to spend your advertising money.
This is common knowledge to most of us, which brings me back to the statement above- I have a hard time believing the type of viewer most apt to regularly watch a show such as DD is gonna be put off by Robertson's opinion.
True, some viewers may be offended, but I suspect a larger amount of viewers may support his views; after all, why would such a show have that large amount of viewers?
Then we have those many viewers who are ignorant of the situation ("GQ magazine, what's that?").
And then there is that sector of viewers who simply do not care, believing in the fact that opinions are just that, so let it go.
My conclusions:
A&E, you're very close to killing your golden goose, cash cow, or whatever else you wish to call it.
The Robertson family obviously doesn't need the network, but the network most certainly needs the ratings provided by the Robertson's.
If you're afraid of the advertisers, my suggestion is to have a meeting of the minds and find more advertising. I'm fairly certain there are others out there who will pay to get in front of that audience.
To the advertisers, you need to evaluate the situation further before reaching conclusions.
You obviously have not considered the demographics surrounding this type of show.
If you are advertising a "neutral" product which appeals to all demographics, your simple goal is to capture the largest audience.
If you are promoting a niche product, you need to focus on capturing the largest audience most compatible with that particular product.
If you are simply threatening to pull advertising because your policies (or even personal beliefs) do not agree with viewpoints and opinions of others, then you truly do not understand the nature of business.
What will happen to the people that choose treatment? Will they be shunned by society and the left for choosing not to remain gay?
Quote: KeyserWhat happens when science one day finds a cure for homosexuality?
What will happen to the people that choose treatment? Will they be shunned by society and the left for choosing not to remain gay?
What happens when science one day finds a cure for conservatives to become smart libs?
What will happen to the people that choose treatment? Will they be shunned by society and the right?
The one thing I don't like is how hypocritical such people are. Robertson says he is against homosexuality. He didn't seem to mind all that much when he was 'riding' Ned Beatty in Deliverance. Lol
Quote: KeyserWhat happens when science one day finds a cure for homosexuality?
What will happen to the people that choose treatment? Will they be shunned by society and the left for choosing not to remain gay?
Again this shows the massive problem. People want to find a cure for homosexuality. How offensive is this
What happens when science one day finds a cure for being black?
What will happen to the people that choose treatment? Will they be shunned by society and the left for choosing not to remain black?
If people find the notion of finding a cure from being black offensive why don't people also find it offensive when someone talks about finding a cure for homosexuality.
Quote: TwirdmanAgain this shows the massive problem. People want to find a cure for homosexuality. How offensive is this
What happens when science one day finds a cure for being black?
What will happen to the people that choose treatment? Will they be shunned by society and the left for choosing not to remain black?
If people find the notion of finding a cure from being black offensive why don't people also find it offensive when someone talks about finding a cure for homosexuality.
Like it or not, for hundreds of years it has been considered a disease, up until as recently as probably the 1970s. Scientists, geneticists, and psychiatrists have been searching for the root cause for a very long time, and they are still searching to this day. And I might add, they have made some some very interesting discoveries. I don't believe anyone should in any way find such research offensive. It's very reasonable to expect that they may even one day find a cure for homosexuals that would feel more comfortable being heterosexual. After all, there are already people that seek out gender reassignment surgeries. So why should it offend anyone to think that some homosexuals might wish to become heterosexual if a treatment was available? I think that it's arrogant of people to assume that some homosexuals don't wish that they could be heterosexuals.
Quote: KeyserLike it or not, for hundreds of years it has been considered a disease, up until as recently as probably the 1970s. Scientists, geneticists, and psychiatrists have been searching for the root cause for a very long time, and they are still searching to this day. And I might add, they have made some some very interesting discoveries. I don't believe anyone should in any way find such research offensive. It's very reasonable to expect that they may even one day find a cure for homosexuals that would feel more comfortable being heterosexual. Afterall, there are already people that seek out gender reassignment surgeries. So why should it offend anyone to think that some homosexuals might wish to become heterosexual if a treatment was available?
I'm not offended that it will happen and I can accept a gay person making that choice. My problem is that homosexuality is seen as a thing to be cured and history doesn't cut it. For hundreds of years blacks were seen as inferior to whites and it wasn't until the 60s that they were legally recognized as equal. Now they still find plenty of hardship based on race and as such why should it offend anyone to think some black people might wish to become white. The problem there is just like the problem with the homosexual cure. I'm not faulting the person who may seek the cure I'm faulting the people who demand he gets "cured".
Quote: EvenBobAngry about beliefs they had a couple thousand
years ago? They didn't know any better.
I agree 100%. What bothers me is that only the most liberal Christians might repudiate the homophobic passages in the bible.
Quote: Keysersome homosexuals might wish to become heterosexual if a treatment was available? I think that it's arrogant of people to assume that some homosexuals don't wish that they could be heterosexuals.
I don't know about wanting to BE heterosexual, but some of us like to DO heterosexuals. :-) I love me some 'straight' boys. You know the ones that after two beers tell ya "I've never done anything like this before". Lol. Oh how I miss my old 'clubbing' days. Not really!
OK, Mr Keyser, the world isn't overpopulated enough, with all you 'breeders' running around doing your thing. Now, you want to find a magic pill to turn us non-breeders into breeders?
Quote: Twirdman. My problem is that homosexuality is seen as a thing to be cured and history doesn't cut it. For hundreds of years blacks were seen as inferior to whites and it wasn't until the 60s that they were legally recognized as equal.
You're suppose to accept that it is defective, or that a family member is gay is a defect. The Jews were supposed to accept the opinions of Nazis without being offended. The blacks were suppose to accept their place in Jim Crow society, and not be offended.
Dang, if someone came up to your spouse and newborn and calls the baby a defect, 'cause they don't like something about it, you're just suppose to laugh it off. It's just an opinion. Even if they get the whole neighborhood discussing it and insulting your family. If their church says it's okay to say it, then it's okay especially if they say it nicely.
Just opinions, and you are suppose to fucking take it all and not be offended. Because all opinions are equal and just like picking flavors of ice cream.
You know what I think? Fuck that. You may have the right to say anything, but all opinions are not equally tolerable.
Quote: TwirdmanI'm not offended that it will happen and I can accept a gay person making that choice. My problem is that homosexuality is seen as a thing to be cured and history doesn't cut it.
Sorry, but many scientists/geneticists believe that it's still more like a disease since it's not the norm. In some cases, it can be a choice, but in many cases it's not. There are distinct difference in the brains of some affected people..
Quote: TwirdmanFor hundreds of years blacks were seen as inferior to whites and it wasn't until the 60s that they were legally recognized as equal.
So? What does that have to do with anything?
Quote: TwirdmanThe problem there is just like the problem with the homosexual cure. I'm not faulting the person who may seek the cure I'm faulting the people who demand he gets "cured".
Sorry, but I don't see anyone demanding that all homosexuals be cured. I do however think that it's cruel to maliciously believe that some homosexuals would rather not be cured.
Now this next part may really upset some of you, but here it goes anyway. Some homosexuals view their religious believes as being more important to them than there sexual preferences.
I also believe that some religions can be cruel with regards to homosexuality. Some branches of Christianity (by no means all) can be cruel, and if you're Muslim - they may kill you.
Quote: rxwineJust opinions, and you are suppose to fucking take it all and not be offended. Because all opinions are equal and just like picking flavors of ice cream.
You know what I think? Fuck that. You may have the right to say anything, but all opinions are not equally tolerable.
Wow, if I made a post like that I have no doubt that I'd be suspended, given my low post count and political views.
Quote: rxwineJust opinions, and you are suppose to fucking take it all and not be offended. Because all opinions are equal and just like picking flavors of ice cream.
You know what I think? Fuck that. You may have the right to say anything, but all opinions are not equally tolerable.
There is a huge difference between being offensive and inflicting harm.
For instance, while I'm not exactly an angel, I find your inability to intelligently express yourself without the use of extreme vulgar offensive.
You may believe that you are simply being offensive to another; however, others may view not your opinion itself as offensive, but rather the manner in which you express it.
Therein lies the difference between merely being offensive and causing harm, as it lowers the standards of the forum as a whole. Simply put, it makes us all look bad for tolerating it.
Quote: rxwineJust opinions, and you are suppose to ****ing take it all and not be offended. Because all opinions are equal and just like picking flavors of ice cream.
You know what I think? **** that. You may have the right to say anything, but all opinions are not equally tolerable.
Consider this an official warning for profanity.
Quote: rob45Well, it appears the rest of the family is gonna stand behind Robertson.
I do not regularly watch this show (I've seen a couple of episodes), but it seems to me that A&E has done very well with this show as far as ratings.
Most likely they still have several hours of the show already done and ready to go.
Were I the individual making the decisions, I would have left it alone.
The demographic most likely to view DD can safely be labeled as "worlds apart" from the demographic most likely to react to (let alone follow) an interview in a magazine such as GQ.
High ratings (high volume of viewers) attract the advertisers; the advertisers support the network.
Earlier in this thread, it has been implied and stated that A&E's decision is based upon the fact that the advertisers are worried that some viewers are offended to the point that the advertising could have a negative expectation.
I'm not so sure that I completely buy into that.
A major requirement of any advertising is to get your product in front of the audience most apt to purchase that type of product. Once it has been determined the product is compatible with the audience, capture as much an audience as possible. Todays executives (both the networks and the ad agencies) seem to focus more on total viewers while almost completely forgetting the concept of compatibility.
I still remember raising my daughter; stations such as Disney channel, cartoon network, etc. were the big things for her. Seems like every commercial was the latest toys, kids clubs and attractions, etc. It was like the Christmas shopping season 365 days/year (I'm certainly glad those days are over!).
Watch the soaps during the day? There's a reason they're called "soap operas". The products featured in the commercials are designed to capture the attention of the type of viewer most likely to be watching that type of show during that time.
You better believe that the most effective time slot for an Autozone commercial is during a NASCAR race or any other autosport.
If you're a fast food chain wanting to run a commercial, buying a time slot on the outdoor channel may not be the most effective way to spend your advertising money.
This is common knowledge to most of us, which brings me back to the statement above- I have a hard time believing the type of viewer most apt to regularly watch a show such as DD is gonna be put off by Robertson's opinion.
True, some viewers may be offended, but I suspect a larger amount of viewers may support his views; after all, why would such a show have that large amount of viewers?
Then we have those many viewers who are ignorant of the situation ("GQ magazine, what's that?").
And then there is that sector of viewers who simply do not care, believing in the fact that opinions are just that, so let it go.
My conclusions:
A&E, you're very close to killing your golden goose, cash cow, or whatever else you wish to call it.
The Robertson family obviously doesn't need the network, but the network most certainly needs the ratings provided by the Robertson's.
If you're afraid of the advertisers, my suggestion is to have a meeting of the minds and find more advertising. I'm fairly certain there are others out there who will pay to get in front of that audience.
To the advertisers, you need to evaluate the situation further before reaching conclusions.
You obviously have not considered the demographics surrounding this type of show.
If you are advertising a "neutral" product which appeals to all demographics, your simple goal is to capture the largest audience.
If you are promoting a niche product, you need to focus on capturing the largest audience most compatible with that particular product.
If you are simply threatening to pull advertising because your policies (or even personal beliefs) do not agree with viewpoints and opinions of others, then you truly do not understand the nature of business.
Just brcause gays may not watch the show doesnt mean that the friends and relatives of gays were not offended. We are into a society where there are not only grown parents, and sibling and friends of gays with buying power, but also grown children of gay people as well...as over the last 10-20 years homosexual couples have been allowed to adopt or have surrogate births.
Just because I never saw a tiger woods buick commercial, I know he is/was a spokesman for buick.So if tiger woods says something against gays, and if I was gay....i may not buy buick. So if advertisers are known to be advertisers on Duck Dynasty....even though the commercials on THAT SHOW may not be vioewedby gays.....they are well aware of the companies giving money to antigay personalities.. And advertisers on Duck Dynasty are now viewed as giving financial support to anti gay people. Even if the father is axed.....no one will believe he still wont get money teickling down to him..after all its the family.
So no....people involved dont really have to watch the show in order to avoid the advertisers products.......and people RELATED to the offended group may be avid watchers of the show....and now turn away. After all this isnt the DR Oz show where people get health info to better their lives. This is a mindless show that people can take or leave. There are plenty of other choices in the 200 channels people have available.
Quote: KeyserWow, if I made a post like that I have no doubt that I'd be suspended, given my low post count and political views.
You really think that your political views matter when it comes to suspension by Mission or the Wizard?
That's kind of insulting to them.
Quote: ThecesspitYou really think that your political views matter when it comes to suspension by Mission or the Wizard?
That's kind of insulting to them.
No it's not. And I don't intend for it to be.
However if I made comments similar to the ones that were made by Kewlj or Rxwine, I do believe that I would be suspended. The reason is because of the outrage that would be expressed by the other side.
-Keyser
Quote: kewljYou guys are just so serious in this thread. I tried my best to inject some humor, twice, including what I thought was my single best line ever, the Ned Beatty/Deliverance reference, to no avail. Just another of the never.ending politicized debates here, with then same folks further entrenching themselves and their positions. :-( Happy Holidays to all.
Okay, humor it is. Deliverance was written by James Dickey and one of the stars was Ronny Cox. I stink at humor. :-)
But that point is completely missed, because we'd rather argue than drink beer together and understand each other, and maybe use that understanding to address the real issues facing all of us.
And I believe that all that stuff Robertson said should be out in the open. Let it stand or fall for what it is. If Duck Dynasty is profitable for A&E, leave it on the air. I never watched it, and this is not a reason for me to check it out.
Quote: KeyserSorry, but many scientists/geneticists believe that it's still more like a disease since it's not the norm. In some cases, it can be a choice, but in many cases it's not. There are distinct difference in the brains of some affected people..
So? What does that have to do with anything?
Sorry, but I don't see anyone demanding that all homosexuals be cured. I do however think that it's cruel to maliciously believe that some homosexuals would rather not be cured.
Now this next part may really upset some of you, but here it goes anyway. Some homosexuals view their religious believes as being more important to them than there sexual preferences.
I also believe that some religions can be cruel with regards to homosexuality. Some branches of Christianity (by no means all) can be cruel, and if you're Muslim - they may kill you.
I do not doubt that some homosexuals would rather be "cured" but that is because society tries to continually tell them that being homosexual is wrong. Again do you doubt that some blacks or people of other races wouldn't want to be "cured" of not being white, I'm sure you can find plenty. Though to suggest that blacks should be cured because some would rather be white is incredibly offensive.
Also why does being homosexual have to be the one sin that got to avoid. Should I also be cured of my love for shellfish. Maybe need treatment for my use of a polyester blended shirt. The truth is the bible being anti gay is bullshit used by bigots to say gays are wrong. Its the same crap as the 60s when they used the bible to say interracial marriage is wrong. The bible is a big book and it can say anything you want it to and surprise when a bigot gets a hold of it it says bigoted things.
Also saying people can be cruel so we should fix it. The KKK was cruel to blacks better fix them. No we say we need to fix the bigot not his target. I mean how to you not get the connection between its wrong to want to "cure" blacks and it being similarly wrong to want to "cure" homosexuals. One is something you've gotten used to the other is something you still hate so rather then fixing your hatred we should just get rid of them right. Would make things so much easier for you.
Quote: mickeycrimmWhen I was a teenager in San Francisco, if I walked 6 blocks I would get hit on by 6 or seven gay men. About one gay man per block. That's how bad it was. If they were doing it to me they were doing it to every male teenager. I've had a chip on my should about it ever since. I am a witness that many gays are child molestors.
No, they weren't hitting on every teenager.....only the cute ones. Lol
I am sorry for your experience mickey. No teen..male, female, gay or straight should have to go rhrought that.
I am not one to take offense at many things, but mickey, your last line is very offensive.
Quote: ams288This is so perfect:
That's supposed to apply to both sides, right?
Quote: kewljI am not one to take offense at many things, but mickey, your last line is very offensive.
What am I supposed to do? Lie about it? I'm not the politically correct.
BTW, the Hollywood liberals at A & E are getting hit with a huge balcklash. Millions of people are prepared to boycott the network. One online petition has over 400,000 signatures so far, with 4,000 an hour still signing up. I for one am sick and tired of Hollywood elitists trying to control the speech of those they disagree with.
Quote: rob45That's supposed to apply to both sides, right?
If you see it as two sides, there's your problem.
It should apply to all people.
Quote: rob45Quote: ams288This is so perfect:
That's supposed to apply to both sides, right?
Yep good thing it does. Liberals also get punished for things they say. Martin Bashir was forced to resign from MSNBC and in fact the right was demanding MSNBC take action for what he said. Again have no problem with that MSNBC is a private company they can put whoever they want on air. I mean what are you implying when you say it doesn't apply to both sides.
Quote: thecesspitIf you see it as two sides, there's your problem.
It should apply to all people.
I agree, and that is why I do not have a problem; however, I do witness both "sides" using/abusing the issue constantly.
Quote: mickeycrimmWhat am I supposed to do? Lie about it? I'm not the politically correct.
No you realize that it was a gay person hitting on you not the gay community. A straight man rapes somebody or molest a little girl and we say he is a monster, but we don't say that all straight men are monsters. Same goes for when a straight woman does it. So why does it suddenly become right to say all gay men are monsters because a small group of them happen to be child molesters. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html less then 1% of identified molesters were gay. Given the prevelence of homosexuality is found to be roughly 5% give or take 1% does not seem to be an overabundance of homosexual molesters. Most studies have found no link between homosexuality and molestation so you can say as a child you were hit on by gay men that can easily be true, you should not then jump to the conclusion that gay men are child molesters, the only conclusion you can reach is that gay man or those gay men were probably child molesters.
LOL...and you only seem to say this whenever someone calls you out after you complain about polls with pro-Republican results (but never pro-liberal results). *facepalm*Quote: terapinedI don't believe any poll, pro lib, pro conserva, makes no diff to me
It wasn't a "gigantic" story until a number of high profile politicians weighed in and the huge amount of fans that decried the suspension.Quote: terapinedIn my mind, there is no story...8 different links on their front web page regarding this non-news story.
But once more, you've never complained about non-news stories when it involves liberals. *facepalm #2*
LOL again! The only people who are obsessed with Fox are libs like you. Hell, I rarely even write about Fox, Limbaugh, or any other conservative media. YOU are the one who brings it up.Quote: terapinedJust cause Fox is consumed by this non news story, you don't have to be. Think for yourself, don't have to follow Fox on every issue.
*BTW, thanks for ignoring the John Podesta remark a SECOND time. ;)
Exactly. And I don't buy the liberal argument that A&E suspended Robertson to appease their advertisers because they did it almost IMMEDIATELY after his comments went public. There wasn't any time for people to complain to advertisers.Quote: rob45A&E, you're very close to killing your golden goose, cash cow, or whatever else you wish to call it.
+1Quote: KeyserAfter all, there are already people that seek out gender reassignment surgeries. So why should it offend anyone to think that some homosexuals might wish to become heterosexual if a treatment was available? I think that it's arrogant of people to assume that some homosexuals don't wish that they could be heterosexuals.
Quote: terapinedWhat happens when science one day finds a cure for conservatives to become smart libs?
That's like saying, "What happens when science one day finds a 'cure' for healthy people to develop pneumonia?" lol
