[Dr. Howard]

(12-20-2013 01:53 AM)la_mode Wrote:  

Too much right-wing pandering. Sometimes I wonder if most on this forum would collectively support Huckabee or Santorum.

The reality is, he could have said something racist, wouldn't matter nearly as much. Which is dumb, but that's how it is.

The immediate reaction to applaud this guys anti-gay comments does come across a bit ignorant though.

How were his comments even "anti-gay"? It read to me like he didn't understand how guys could be gay, said that they wouldn't inherit the kingdom of god but he would never personally disrespect a gay person.

Anti-gay and redneck would have been "I ain't sellin no duck calls to any faggots"

To me, there is a fine line. He is being persecuted because he's 'gay neutral' not for it, but not crusading against it.

Imagine that, if you were declared 'anti-gay' because you didn't go to the pride parade in Toronto or chose not to put a rainbow flag up at your house.

[Clyde]

He wasn't fired.

Quote:

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson has been placed on indefinite hiatus

I don't watch the show. I know what it's about. He plays up the Redneck role. What do you expect him to say?

Their ratings will triple now and their merch will fly off the shelves. Conservatives will use him as the face of Free Speech. They will be back in full swing by February.




*LOL. I knew somehow Obama was going to get blamed for this. Ridiculous.

[Parlay44]

(12-20-2013 08:02 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  

How were his comments even "anti-gay"? It read to me like he didn't understand how guys could be gay, said that they wouldn't inherit the kingdom of god but he would never personally disrespect a gay person.

The kingdom of heaven is a financial kingdom. It means financial security in my interpretation. Back in biblical time having more kids meant having more farm hands and that means bringing in more money.

If anything gays have more financial security today. They don't pay alimony or child support. They usually have high paying corporate jobs. So if they live together they share rent and no kids to pay for so they have tons of disposable income.

Gays have taken over Asbury Park, NJ and the local surrounding areas that used to be all ghetto section 8. They clean up the town, open trendy bars and restaraunts. It's crazy.

[Dr. Howard]

(12-20-2013 10:38 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 08:02 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  

How were his comments even "anti-gay"? It read to me like he didn't understand how guys could be gay, said that they wouldn't inherit the kingdom of god but he would never personally disrespect a gay person.

The kingdom of heaven is a financial kingdom. It means financial security in my interpretation. Back in biblical time having more kids meant having more farm hands and that means bringing in more money.

If anything gays have more financial security today. They don't pay alimony or child support. They usually have high paying corporate jobs. So if they live together they share rent and no kids to pay for so they have tons of disposable income.

Gays have taken over Asbury Park, NJ and the local surrounding areas that used to be all ghetto section 8. They clean up the town, open trendy bars and restaraunts. It's crazy.

Don't agree on the kingdom of heaven = financial part but definitely gay couples are disposable income champions. Two adult incomes, one shared living space and no kids. Money to burn.

[Parlay44]

(12-20-2013 11:16 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 10:38 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 08:02 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  

How were his comments even "anti-gay"? It read to me like he didn't understand how guys could be gay, said that they wouldn't inherit the kingdom of god but he would never personally disrespect a gay person.

The kingdom of heaven is a financial kingdom. It means financial security in my interpretation. Back in biblical time having more kids meant having more farm hands and that means bringing in more money.

If anything gays have more financial security today. They don't pay alimony or child support. They usually have high paying corporate jobs. So if they live together they share rent and no kids to pay for so they have tons of disposable income.

Gays have taken over Asbury Park, NJ and the local surrounding areas that used to be all ghetto section 8. They clean up the town, open trendy bars and restaraunts. It's crazy.

Don't agree on the kingdom of heaven = financial part but definitely gay couples are disposable income champions. Two adult incomes, one shared living space and no kids. Money to burn.

Come on man. Who wrote the bible? Jews did. What better describes Jewish heaven than a huge pile of money? Inheriting the kingdom of heaven is achieving financial security. Gays have found a big hairy loophole to the system. That's why they're hated on. Nobody cares where they stick their dicks.

[Teedub]

Camile Paglia ain't having it:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/19/paglia...edirect=no

[Teedub]

(12-19-2013 02:05 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

What do you think of this?



Maddox (the author) immediately got slammed by the SWPL crowd for being "insensitive" and "inciting anti-gay remarks".

You can't win with these victimhood-seeking freaks. I can't wait to get out of Britain, where it's pretty much the same as the States with this stuff. I can't wait until I can say to people "You know what? I think this homosexuality stuff is going a bit far" without feeling like a social pariah.

[runsonmagic]

A&E should be free to choose their clientele as they see fit. The same rule should apply to people who bake wedding cakes.

[speakeasy]

(12-20-2013 08:02 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:53 AM)la_mode Wrote:  

Too much right-wing pandering. Sometimes I wonder if most on this forum would collectively support Huckabee or Santorum.

The reality is, he could have said something racist, wouldn't matter nearly as much. Which is dumb, but that's how it is.

The immediate reaction to applaud this guys anti-gay comments does come across a bit ignorant though.

How were his comments even "anti-gay"? It read to me like he didn't understand how guys could be gay, said that they wouldn't inherit the kingdom of god but he would never personally disrespect a gay person.

Anti-gay and redneck would have been "I ain't sellin no duck calls to any faggots"

To me, there is a fine line. He is being persecuted because he's 'gay neutral' not for it, but not crusading against it.

Imagine that, if you were declared 'anti-gay' because you didn't go to the pride parade in Toronto or chose not to put a rainbow flag up at your house.

I think this is a good point. Gays are become the sacred cows of the modern era. Being neutral towards gays will be tantamount to being anti-gay. Just in the same way that being neutral toward Hitler means being pro-Hitler in people's mind*. You cannot NOT be pro-gay or you are a bigot. It's a polarizing issue that you are being forced into one extreme camp or another.


* Sorry for invoking Godwin's Law.

[bacon]

if i owned stock in a&e i would be pissed at this shit

the show is the most sucessful program on that network and his comments were at best not supportive of homosexuals(definately not anti gay) and they are firing this dude? This guy is the patriarch of a rich family and i would not be surprised if the rest of the cast(his family) quit over this in support of him. The network might find that pushing rich people around is not as easy to do and rich people like this dude can behave as they like since they dont need to suck the a&e teet for survival. I really hope the whole family just cancels the show and in a year or two works for a competitor network like discovery for even more money.

Btw this incident has in my mind made me believe that gays have officially crossed the rubicon in their status as the premier victim class.

[Sawyer]

"…his comments were at best not supportive of homosexuals…" Bacon

I agree. It's funny. All he really did was describe homosexuality and everyone is calling it "vile."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

The cultural Marxists lost this one big time. This may be a turning point.

[soup]

I read that this guy also has a thing against black people. How does that make all you guys feel about him now?

[Parlay44]

(12-20-2013 01:44 PM)soup Wrote:  

I read that this guy also has a thing against black people. How does that make all you guys feel about him now?

Everyone is racist to an extent. Just not everyone vocalizes it.

[bacon]

(12-20-2013 01:44 PM)soup Wrote:  

I read that this guy also has a thing against black people. How does that make all you guys feel about him now?

He doesnt speak publicly about that at least not that I have seen so no reason to bring that up.

This issue just exemplifies how sensitive corporate culture has become in towing the line for political correctness. We are living in dangerous times when freedom of speech is second place to saying the policitally correct thing..

[Brosemite]

(12-20-2013 01:53 PM)bacon Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:44 PM)soup Wrote:  

I read that this guy also has a thing against black people. How does that make all you guys feel about him now?

He doesnt speak publicly about that at least not that I have seen so no reason to bring that up.

This issue just exemplifies how sensitive corporate culture has become in towing the line for political correctness. We are living in dangerous times when freedom of speech is second place to saying the policitally correct thing..

I believe in freedom of speech, but people need to accept consequences as a result of their decision making too. Just like Twitter has the right to hire whoever they want for upper tier positions, A&E has the right to structure a company based on how they want to be portrayed in public.

Do I agree with how A&E went about this? Not really. I think they should've set the guy aside and talked to him about things before making this impulsive decision.

[Sherman]

Paglia: Duck Dynasty uproar ‘utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist’

“I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility,” Paglia said. “This is not the mark of a true intellectual life. This is why there is no cultural life now in the U.S. Why nothing is of interest coming from the major media in terms of cultural criticism. Why the graduates of the Ivy League with their A, A, A+ grades are complete cultural illiterates, etc. is because they are not being educated in any way to give respect to opposing view points.”

“There is a dialogue going on human civilization, for heaven sakes. It’s not just this monologue coming from fanatics who have displaced the religious beliefs of their parents into a political movement,” she added. “And that is what happened to feminism, and that is what happened to gay activism, a fanaticism.”


http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/19/paglia...stalinist/

[speakeasy]

(12-20-2013 01:32 PM)bacon Wrote:  

Btw this incident has in my mind made me believe that gays have officially crossed the rubicon in their status as the premier victim class.

What's odd to me is that it's straight people that seem to be driving the gay agenda. I don't recall there being a gay march on Washington or gays out in mass protest about their status as second class citizens. It seems like this issue just cropped up out of nowhere. The movement was mostly driven by white straight liberals who wanted to make it an issue. It was people like Rahm Emmanuel who threatened to shut down Chic-Fil-A in Chicago. It was Gavin Newsom who made it a crusade to force gay marriage in defiance of the law. I think gays themselves are less radical than you might otherwise believe. Some people here say that gays are quite red pill when you get to know them. It's mostly straight white liberal do-gooders that are the force behind the current witch hunt against anyone with a politically incorrect stance on homosexuality.

Also, from what I understand, the majority of gay males have no intention of marriage.

[AnonymousBosch]

(12-20-2013 02:27 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

What's odd to me is that it's straight people that seem to be driving the gay agenda.

It's straight women. Gay men fulfil the function as beta orbiters for them, except they offer additional supply by enjoying shopping, knowing how to dress them well, do their hair and makeup, and take them to the hottest clubs. Odds are they have jacked bodies that she'll get to touch in a way that would be considered sexual harrassment were the roles reversed.

If gay men ever woke up and realised they're being shaped and used by women and that the placating the concerns of the female should be utterly-irrelevant to them, female promotion of homosexuality would instantly vanish overnight.

Quote:

Gays are become the sacred cows of the modern era. Being neutral towards gays will be tantamount to being anti-gay.

It's Orwell's principle of Newspeak. Redefine the word 'homophobia' to mean anything but utter, uncritical adoration of homosexuality, which makes any other possibility Thoughtcrime. Remove the shades of grey, and you control the thought and the allowable discourse on the topic.

They're currently doing it with 'rape' to mean any unwanted attention from or interaction with a male rather forced non-consensual penetrative sex.

[GameTheory]

(12-19-2013 10:26 PM)renotime Wrote:  

From what I have seen, the ones that talk most about their faith are the most hypocritical and completely worthless human beings.

(12-18-2013 09:38 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Dude is a bible-thumping white Christian. He hates fags, Jews, blacks, Arabs. Pretty much anyone non-white(not publicly of course). I'll bet he even has a Klan hood in the closet.

another self-hating right-wing conservative x-tian closet case, y'all suppose ???

[Teedub]

(12-20-2013 03:00 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

It's Orwell's principle of Newspeak. Redefine the word 'homophobia' to mean anything but utter, uncritical adoration of homosexuality, which makes any other possibility Thoughtcrime. Remove the shades of grey, and you control the thought and the allowable discourse on the topic.

They're currently doing it with 'rape' to mean any unwanted attention from or interaction with a male rather forced non-consensual penetrative sex.

Orwell really was a genius prophet. He knew how society would end up. I honestly think a lot of the book will/already has come true. There will be huge continental resource wars in the next 100 years, of that I'm fairly sure.

Do you think these authoritarian PC fanatics know what they're doing. Do they read Orwell and think "Gee, that's a good idea"? I honestly don't know. They surely won't think what they're doing is bad, but how could they not?

[All or Nothing]

I could post this on a lot of threads, but I will say it here.

The thing that bothers me about not only the LGBT community, but the feminists and the corporate elite is that they are fucking with the lives of the ordinary man.

The LGBT community, the feminists and the corporate elite have been given everything they could possibly want and more. Yet, they are still unsatisfied.

Do they not realize that they are messing with the most powerful and dangerous group of people that have existed throughout human history? Have they not opened up a history book and seen what happens when you take away the life and liberty of the ordinary man?

I think I speak for a lot of men when I say this, I just want to live my life. I want to chase after my ambitions, enjoy my leisure time and at the end of the day I want to have the life I want to live and allow others to do the same. For whatever reason, the LGBT community, the feminists and the corporate elite are not satisfied with this very basic set of needs, so they continue to encroach upon them.

What will happen when the ordinary man can no longer live freely? What will happen when the ordinary man can no longer enjoy his leisure time?

I think the biggest question here is what will happen when the ordinary man is left with nothing to lose and everything to gain?

The LGBT, the feminists and the corporate elite are delusional if they believe that there are no consequences to their actions. These people are marching towards their own death sentence and they are too arrogant to see it. For whatever reason, they seem to be incapable of understanding that their power is given to them by us, the ordinary man.

As it stands right now, I can still live the life I want to live. I don't want to devote my life to politics or social change.

Still, the LGBT, the feminists and the corporate elite have been making moves for over five decades now and they show no signs of stopping. They won't stop. The day will come when we the ordinary man are left with nothing to lose and everything to gain. When that day comes, are any of you ready to make these people understand the real meaning of social change?

[AnonymousBosch]

(12-20-2013 03:44 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Do you think these authoritarian PC fanatics know what they're doing. Do they read Orwell and think "Gee, that's a good idea"? I honestly don't know.

Orwell observed these tactics already existed in collectivised societies like the Soviet Union, and simply explained and labelled the concepts under the disguise of speculative fiction.

Been a long time since I read it, so I'm trying to remember. I'm fairly sure Newspeak is partially also a reductive parody of a Then-Famous English Leftist Writer's Currently-Popular Ideas about language at the time. Orwell saw through the bullshit to what it could result in, and agreed and amplified.

Quote:

They surely won't think what they're doing is bad, but how could they not?

The historians decide who is evil after their society has been victorious. People don't 'just decide' to be evil. Their morality makes righteous sense to them. The Nazi Party thought they was doing the right thing for the betterment of his society. Same with Socialists.

This is why I'm glad the social justice craze has flowered this year. These people were normally marginalised from society by their dysfunction. The internet has given them a voice and mainstream exposure. Their utter belief that they're right and they know best for society means they are unaware of how damaged their thought is, and people who never would have interacted with them before can now easily see it for themselves.

Every social justice warrior screaming that people can't be reverse racist or that all men should be castrated or that free speech should be revoked or that rape is glancing in the direction of a woman destroys 30+ years of leftist propaganda that these people are tolerant, healthy, normal people who want to fit into society 'just like you and me'. We should celebrate this. Once again, agree and amplify. The average person will just become increasingly more horrified and polarised against them, and the critical mass will result in a crisis point.

I've actually seen Feminists suggesting Eugenics again. Power will make them more arrogant, then their arrogance will doom them.

[Peregrine]

(12-20-2013 03:44 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Do you think these authoritarian PC fanatics know what they're doing. Do they read Orwell and think "Gee, that's a good idea"? I honestly don't know. They surely won't think what they're doing is bad, but how could they not?

It is human nature to judge others by the outcome, but oneself by intentions. If someone else is late, they're irresponsible. If you're late, it's because the morning was a perfect storm of faulty alarm clocks, crying children, and bad traffic. Those who put effort into, and are good at, self-awareness frequently forget how difficult it is.

I don't doubt that (most) authoritarian PC fanatics are well intentioned. But we all know where that road leads.

[Tail Gunner]

Open homosexual writer Brandon Ambrosino, writing for Time Magaize:

Quote:

The Duck Dynasty Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil’s, By Brandon Ambrosino, Dec. 19, 2013

For the record, I’m undecided on whether or not I think Phil actually is homophobic, although I certainly think his statement was offensive, and not only to the LGBT community. But I also think that if I were to spend a day calling ducks with Phil, I’d probably end up liking him — even in spite of his position on gay men. It’s quite possible to throw one’s political support behind traditional, heterosexual marriage, and yet not be bigoted.

I’m reminded of something Bill Maher said during the height of the Paula Deen controversy: “Do we always have to make people go away?” I think the question applies in this situation too.

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them? One of the biggest pop-culture icons of today just took center stage to “educate” us about sexuality. I see this as an opportunity to further the discussion, to challenge his limited understanding of human desire, to engage with him and his rather sizable audience — most of whom, by the way, probably share his views — and to rise above the endless sea of tweet-hate to help move our LGBT conversations to where they need to go.

G.K. Chesterton said that bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” If he is right — and he usually is — then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duc...han-phils/

[MrXY]

Just heard a report that a federal judge in Utah of all places has held that the state's ban on gay marriage, passed by 66% of the voters, is unconstitutional. The absurd proposition that the U.S. Constitution requires gay marriage shows just how much success the cultural marxists are having. They have taken over the elite positions in society and are ramming their agenda down the throats of the populace with increasing arrogance and vitriol.

In the early years of the gay rights movement, their argument to the public was that they just wanted to be left alone and tolerated. But that was never the true agenda. The plan was always to attack the institution of marriage and the normality of heterosexuality, and to force people to approve of and "celebrate" homosexuality. Now, just as with the other tentacles of of cultural marxism-feminism and racial identity politics- not just open disagreement with the party line, but the least disapproval or and even a failure to be sufficiently enthusiastic about every point of the agenda makes one suspect and a target for retaliation.

My impression from the many accounts I've read are that people who are beholden to large institutions; such employees in large corporations, the government ,or students, are now living in fear and carefully censor their speech and interactions to avoid getting on the radar of management as being someone who might have dissenting views.