[Days of Broken Arrows]

Here we go again.

Entertainment Weekly is reporting that "thousands" have signed an online petition at Change.org asking TLC to take the reality show "19 Kids and Counting Off the Air."

According to the story, last week the family "found themselves in hot water" after the mom and dad (Michelle and Jim Bob) posted a Facebook message about marriage that set off SJWs and gay activists. The message:

"God designed marriage to be a loving, dynamic relationship between a husband and wife for a lifetime. God loves marriage and it is supposed to be full of love, joy, fun and romance," the caption wrote. "We challenge all married couples to take a happily married picture and post it here."

After that, a fan named John Becker posted a picture of him kissing his same-sex spouse and the photo was banned.

Now, reports are emerging that the family "donated $10,000 to repeal equal housing rights for LGBTQ members" and that kid Josh Duggar "is a member of the Family Research Center" which is allegedly anti-gay.

My opinion: Once again, I'll say this is getting like the McCarthy era, where having a wrong opinion or being involved with the wrong group got you banned from TV. How is this different than folk singer Pete Seeger being not allowed on TV because he held unpopular views?

It takes all kinds. I am not religious at all and I assume if I ever paid attention to these people, I'd find dozens of statements that offended me. But I don't think that means their show should be canceled.

I included the link to the story above because the comments underneath the article show that other people feel this way and there is some pushback. Same goes for the comments on EW's Facebook page.

[TheWastelander]

(11-19-2014 03:24 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Here we go again.

Entertainment Weekly is reporting that "thousands" have signed an online petition at Change.org asking TLC to take the reality show "19 Kids and Counting Off the Air."

According to the story, last week the family "found themselves in hot water" after the mom and dad (Michelle and Jim Bob) posted a Facebook message about marriage that set off SJWs and gay activists. The message:

"God designed marriage to be a loving, dynamic relationship between a husband and wife for a lifetime. God loves marriage and it is supposed to be full of love, joy, fun and romance," the caption wrote. "We challenge all married couples to take a happily married picture and post it here."

After that, a fan named John Becker posted a picture of him kissing his same-sex spouse and the photo was banned.

Now, reports are emerging that the family "donated $10,000 to repeal equal housing rights for LGBTQ members" and that kid Josh Duggar "is a member of the Family Research Center" which is allegedly anti-gay.

My opinion: Once again, I'll say this is getting like the McCarthy era, where having a wrong opinion or being involved with the wrong group got you banned from TV. How is this different than folk singer Pete Seeger being not allowed on TV because he held unpopular views?

It takes all kinds. I am not religious at all and I assume if I ever paid attention to these people, I'd find dozens of statements that offended me. But I don't think that means their show should be canceled.

I included the link to the story above because the comments underneath the article show that other people feel this way and there is some pushback. Same goes for the comments on EW's Facebook page.

SJWs are the useful idiots of Satan himself, promoting every deviant behavior known to man and are fooled into thinking what they're doing is a good thing.

They will not be happy until America is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.

What have the Duggars ever done to anyone? Even if you disagree with their lifestyle and beliefs they take care of their own, don't use welfare to pay for their kids and don't hurt anybody.

I've never watched their show and I'm not interested in it (I dislike reality TV), but I hope the Duggars fight these idiots tooth and nail.

[Libertas]

Is there a counterpetition?

Remember, the way to deal with these cunts is to set up a competing narrative and fan those flames.

[kbell]

This reminds me of the Duck Dynasty fiasco that happened awhile back. The lavender mafia is in full effect. Its interesting how they have to provoke the Duggan with a picture of them kissing. Than when they ban that claim discrimination. This is discrimination against Christian values.

[Sonsowey]

Hopefully companies get used to these little uproars and realize they are not the end of the world.

I am sure if you are a holdover from the pre internet era and you hear that thousands of fans are angry, you may see that as a huge development. Probably it will just become par for the course.

Change.gov, who woud have imagined it would be used to get TV shows taken down...

[turkishcandy]

(11-19-2014 03:24 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

My opinion: Once again, I'll say this is getting like the McCarthy era, where having a wrong opinion or being involved with the wrong group got you banned from TV. How is this different than folk singer Pete Seeger being not allowed on TV because he held unpopular views?

In my opinion, the problem lies within the system that allows people's lives to be ruined and employments to be terminated only because of some ''offended'' mob and change.org petitions which I find just laughable. Imagine the same amount of people that signed this petition signing it to change something in Russia. They would laugh out their asses at this change.org shit after they realized how fucking ridiculous it was.

In a somewhat democratic country, just as people have the right to advocate same-sex marriage and subtly oppose faggot marriage on the internet, like Michelle and Jim did, people should also have the right to be outraged, start a witchhunt and even sign petitions for the show to be taken down. When the show is taken down and innocent people are fired, I would only blame the system that is so wrong to let this happen. The SJWs are not to blame here. They are only a reaction to this corrupt system. They would have no power in any conservative country. You gotta ask yourself, what is it about U.S that makes people so sensitive to free speech and fragile to witchhunts. It's like the whole country is one big corporation where any remark that can offend the fat chick in the office ends with the termination of your employment.

[Dr. Howard]

(11-19-2014 04:31 PM)kbell Wrote:  

This reminds me of the Duck Dynasty fiasco that happened awhile back. The lavender mafia is in full effect. Its interesting how they have to provoke the Duggan with a picture of them kissing. Than when they ban that claim discrimination. This is discrimination against Christian values.

I was going to say the same thing..."Anti Gay" has been used to go after Chick Fil A, Duck Dynasty, The Duggars and Preachers in Houston. Show me the SJW's going after muslims for being Anti Gay and I'll believe that its not just a front for christian persecution.

[ChrisPitts]

Jesus, it's not like they even said anything negative about homos in the first place. That message was entirely positive.

When is this shit going to end? Maybe once Roosh's fireteam(s) get up and running can we see some of these assholes get their comeuppance.

[Soberane]

I'm not into watching realities shows, or TV for the matter, but I would make time to watch this, just like Chick Fill A, I'm getting so tired of the gays and SJWs that I wailing to support any company or person that oppose, and go against their sick view.

What they don't understand is that the majority of people are against them, they just happens to make more noise, but when the real majority people want to say "fuck you", they do it in a cool way.

The Chick Fill A effect:

[Truth Teller]

Welcome to the United States.

You have the freedom of speech as long as you don't speak out against:
1. Gays
2. "Transgenders"
3. Feminists
4. Any other non-minority protected group

Feel free to bash on blacks and Hispanics though. They're responsible for "street harassment."

[CRR]

I'm fine with gay marriage, I have no issues with gay people. I work with several, all are cool with me. Likewise, I work with a few churchgoing folk, and they are cool with me as well. With almost anything*, so long as no one forces their views/lifestyle on me, we're on good terms.

I have nothing in common with the Duggars or the Duck Dynasty guys, nor have I ever watched their shows. And if people want to protest, go for it. But to advocate silence for people espousing contrary views is absolutely wrong.

SJW actions are often contrary to freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Besides, hell if I'm going to give up Chick-Fil-A.

*I don't consider all religions equal, nor do I think all this transgender/transsexual/cisgender normal, but that's a different discussion.

[zaqan]

This and the commenters at the Chateau have just about convinced me to oppose gay marriage again. Also, once you get off the internet, no one cares if you say the word faggot.

[Soberane]

(11-19-2014 09:52 PM)CRR Wrote:  

I'm fine with gay marriage, I have no issues with gay people. I work with several, all are cool with me. Likewise, I work with a few churchgoing folk, and they are cool with me as well. With almost anything*, so long as no one forces their views/lifestyle on me, we're on good terms.

I have nothing in common with the Duggars or the Duck Dynasty guys, nor have I ever watched their shows. And if people want to protest, go for it. But to advocate silence for people espousing contrary views is absolutely wrong.

SJW actions are often contrary to freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Besides, hell if I'm going to give up Chick-Fil-A.

*I don't consider all religions equal, nor do I think all this transgender/transsexual/cisgender normal, but that's a different discussion.

Marriage had nothing to do with the government as an institution, at the beginning a man and a women will get married with a ceremony at the church, close friends and family, not paper signed. It was a moral code, a way to say, "they can fuck and make babies and not face shame".

The point of marriage was to secure the offspring, give them a stable family and creating a community where everyone else is doing the same, so that society as a whole move forward.


As the government grow every generation. The government saw a huge potential in getting involve in the institution, when the government and population was small, the government had little control over people lives, (this was a reason to not allow women the right to vote, legal matters never affect them directly).

When gays beg the government to legalize gay marriage, in reality they are asking
just to an institution that got involved in the original marriage. Government did not create marriage, but gays behave like it did.

[Dr. Howard]

(11-19-2014 10:31 PM)Soberane Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 09:52 PM)CRR Wrote:  

I'm fine with gay marriage, I have no issues with gay people. I work with several, all are cool with me. Likewise, I work with a few churchgoing folk, and they are cool with me as well. With almost anything*, so long as no one forces their views/lifestyle on me, we're on good terms.

I have nothing in common with the Duggars or the Duck Dynasty guys, nor have I ever watched their shows. And if people want to protest, go for it. But to advocate silence for people espousing contrary views is absolutely wrong.

SJW actions are often contrary to freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Besides, hell if I'm going to give up Chick-Fil-A.

*I don't consider all religions equal, nor do I think all this transgender/transsexual/cisgender normal, but that's a different discussion.

Marriage had nothing to do with the government as an institution, at the beginning a man and a women will get married with a ceremony at the church, close friends and family, not paper signed. It was a moral code, a way to say, "they can fuck and make babies and not face shame".

The point of marriage was to secure the offspring, give them a stable family and creating a community where everyone else is doing the same, so that society as a whole move forward.


As the government grow every generation. The government saw a huge potential in getting involve in the institution, when the government and population was small, the government had little control over people lives, (this was a reason to not allow women the right to vote, legal matters never affect them directly).

When gays beg the government to legalize gay marriage, in reality they are asking
just to an institution that got involved in the original marriage. Government did not create marriage, but gays behave like it did.

I agree, the solution i would like the most is to have government stop recognizing all marriages. You can name anyone in your will and name anyone for shared health benefits etc.

Shared property should be managed through separate agreements.

Marriage should be established through religious or personal commitment only. Gays who want to say "we are married" can go ahead and say it and be held accountable to themselves. People who want to say "we are married under the eyes of god" can be held accountable to themselves, god and shamed by their church if they abandon those vows.

Especially nowadays, when paternity can be established by DNA, the state doesn't need some sort of convoluted way to establish who is legally responsible for a child's well being tied to marriage.

[Soberane]

(11-20-2014 09:07 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 10:31 PM)Soberane Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 09:52 PM)CRR Wrote:  

I'm fine with gay marriage, I have no issues with gay people. I work with several, all are cool with me. Likewise, I work with a few churchgoing folk, and they are cool with me as well. With almost anything*, so long as no one forces their views/lifestyle on me, we're on good terms.

I have nothing in common with the Duggars or the Duck Dynasty guys, nor have I ever watched their shows. And if people want to protest, go for it. But to advocate silence for people espousing contrary views is absolutely wrong.

SJW actions are often contrary to freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Besides, hell if I'm going to give up Chick-Fil-A.

*I don't consider all religions equal, nor do I think all this transgender/transsexual/cisgender normal, but that's a different discussion.

Marriage had nothing to do with the government as an institution, at the beginning a man and a women will get married with a ceremony at the church, close friends and family, not paper signed. It was a moral code, a way to say, "they can fuck and make babies and not face shame".

The point of marriage was to secure the offspring, give them a stable family and creating a community where everyone else is doing the same, so that society as a whole move forward.


As the government grow every generation. The government saw a huge potential in getting involve in the institution, when the government and population was small, the government had little control over people lives, (this was a reason to not allow women the right to vote, legal matters never affect them directly).

When gays beg the government to legalize gay marriage, in reality they are asking
just to an institution that got involved in the original marriage. Government did not create marriage, but gays behave like it did.

I agree, the solution i would like the most is to have government stop recognizing all marriages. You can name anyone in your will and name anyone for shared health benefits etc.

Shared property should be managed through separate agreements.

Marriage should be established through religious or personal commitment only. Gays who want to say "we are married" can go ahead and say it and be held accountable to themselves. People who want to say "we are married under the eyes of god" can be held accountable to themselves, god and shamed by their church if they abandon those vows.

Especially nowadays, when paternity can be established by DNA, the state doesn't need some sort of convoluted way to establish who is legally responsible for a child's well being tied to marriage.

The problem is that gays are very narcissistic, they could have a lawyer sing some documents to show who is responsible for who, just like old people can declare one of his/her kids to be the one with legal power when in the hospital, but they want to imitated what heterosexual people do, they beg the government for marriage, and now they want to force bakeries and other business to celebrate their so called marriage, with the help of the government, how big is a gay population in the USA? around 2% if I remember correctly, if you want to see society collapse in action, ask yourself how such small population has so much power over the media, government, and private corporations.

[TheWastelander]

(11-21-2014 12:04 PM)Soberane Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 09:07 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 10:31 PM)Soberane Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 09:52 PM)CRR Wrote:  

I'm fine with gay marriage, I have no issues with gay people. I work with several, all are cool with me. Likewise, I work with a few churchgoing folk, and they are cool with me as well. With almost anything*, so long as no one forces their views/lifestyle on me, we're on good terms.

I have nothing in common with the Duggars or the Duck Dynasty guys, nor have I ever watched their shows. And if people want to protest, go for it. But to advocate silence for people espousing contrary views is absolutely wrong.

SJW actions are often contrary to freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Besides, hell if I'm going to give up Chick-Fil-A.

*I don't consider all religions equal, nor do I think all this transgender/transsexual/cisgender normal, but that's a different discussion.

Marriage had nothing to do with the government as an institution, at the beginning a man and a women will get married with a ceremony at the church, close friends and family, not paper signed. It was a moral code, a way to say, "they can fuck and make babies and not face shame".

The point of marriage was to secure the offspring, give them a stable family and creating a community where everyone else is doing the same, so that society as a whole move forward.


As the government grow every generation. The government saw a huge potential in getting involve in the institution, when the government and population was small, the government had little control over people lives, (this was a reason to not allow women the right to vote, legal matters never affect them directly).

When gays beg the government to legalize gay marriage, in reality they are asking
just to an institution that got involved in the original marriage. Government did not create marriage, but gays behave like it did.

I agree, the solution i would like the most is to have government stop recognizing all marriages. You can name anyone in your will and name anyone for shared health benefits etc.

Shared property should be managed through separate agreements.

Marriage should be established through religious or personal commitment only. Gays who want to say "we are married" can go ahead and say it and be held accountable to themselves. People who want to say "we are married under the eyes of god" can be held accountable to themselves, god and shamed by their church if they abandon those vows.

Especially nowadays, when paternity can be established by DNA, the state doesn't need some sort of convoluted way to establish who is legally responsible for a child's well being tied to marriage.

The problem is that gays are very narcissistic, they could have a lawyer sing some documents to show who is responsible for who, just like old people can declare one of his/her kids to be the one with legal power when in the hospital, but they want to imitated what heterosexual people do, they beg the government for marriage, and now they want to force bakeries and other business to celebrate their so called marriage, with the help of the government, how big is a gay population in the USA? around 2% if I remember correctly, if you want to see society collapse in action, ask yourself how such small population has so much power over the media, government, and private corporations.

They only have the power the cultural marxists in high places give them. The fact that there are gays trying to use the law to force Christians to either serve them or go out of business should be proof enough what is at work here.

They have yet to do this to Muslims, Jews, or any other religious group in this country as far as I know.

They are pawns of their Satanic masters.

[Soberane]

(11-21-2014 12:42 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 12:04 PM)Soberane Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 09:07 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 10:31 PM)Soberane Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 09:52 PM)CRR Wrote:  

I'm fine with gay marriage, I have no issues with gay people. I work with several, all are cool with me. Likewise, I work with a few churchgoing folk, and they are cool with me as well. With almost anything*, so long as no one forces their views/lifestyle on me, we're on good terms.

I have nothing in common with the Duggars or the Duck Dynasty guys, nor have I ever watched their shows. And if people want to protest, go for it. But to advocate silence for people espousing contrary views is absolutely wrong.

SJW actions are often contrary to freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Besides, hell if I'm going to give up Chick-Fil-A.

*I don't consider all religions equal, nor do I think all this transgender/transsexual/cisgender normal, but that's a different discussion.

Marriage had nothing to do with the government as an institution, at the beginning a man and a women will get married with a ceremony at the church, close friends and family, not paper signed. It was a moral code, a way to say, "they can fuck and make babies and not face shame".

The point of marriage was to secure the offspring, give them a stable family and creating a community where everyone else is doing the same, so that society as a whole move forward.


As the government grow every generation. The government saw a huge potential in getting involve in the institution, when the government and population was small, the government had little control over people lives, (this was a reason to not allow women the right to vote, legal matters never affect them directly).

When gays beg the government to legalize gay marriage, in reality they are asking
just to an institution that got involved in the original marriage. Government did not create marriage, but gays behave like it did.

I agree, the solution i would like the most is to have government stop recognizing all marriages. You can name anyone in your will and name anyone for shared health benefits etc.

Shared property should be managed through separate agreements.

Marriage should be established through religious or personal commitment only. Gays who want to say "we are married" can go ahead and say it and be held accountable to themselves. People who want to say "we are married under the eyes of god" can be held accountable to themselves, god and shamed by their church if they abandon those vows.

Especially nowadays, when paternity can be established by DNA, the state doesn't need some sort of convoluted way to establish who is legally responsible for a child's well being tied to marriage.

The problem is that gays are very narcissistic, they could have a lawyer sing some documents to show who is responsible for who, just like old people can declare one of his/her kids to be the one with legal power when in the hospital, but they want to imitated what heterosexual people do, they beg the government for marriage, and now they want to force bakeries and other business to celebrate their so called marriage, with the help of the government, how big is a gay population in the USA? around 2% if I remember correctly, if you want to see society collapse in action, ask yourself how such small population has so much power over the media, government, and private corporations.

They only have the power the cultural marxists in high places give them. The fact that there are gays trying to use the law to force Christians to either serve them or go out of business should be proof enough what is at work here.

They have yet to do this to Muslims, Jews, or any other religious group in this country as far as I know.

They are pawns of their Satanic masters.

The same way PETA never attack "Hell's Angels" for wearing real leather, the part that really make people angry is that for liberalism and others SJW bullshit to exist they need a Christian conservative base to allow them to, minority rights do not exist outside Christian countries.

Those same people would not survive in a Muslim country, where did Malala Yousafzai run to after being hit in the head?

Quote:

While Malala was laughing, playing and enjoying the safety of receiving an education in a predominantly white country found upon Christian morals, school girls in Africa were being kidnapped.

Quote:

So yes, never fear you ladies of the 2nd and 3rd world. You, too, can brave all those bad men and receive an education: so long as there are prosperous countries founded upon and still more or less exercising European Christian morals that still exist for you to run to (and which you can afford to run off to in the first place), and that you’re willing to be a hollow mascot for the powers that be in those countries.

http://www.returnofkings.com/45748/nobel...-hypocrite

The essential difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals could not exist without conservatives to defend their freedom and support economically.

Conservative, on the other hand, could exist and live quiet well without liberals.

In theory, by attacking Christian conservative, liberals are attacking themselves. Once there is not more Christians, they will go not longer exist.

[Dr. Howard]

(11-21-2014 11:32 PM)Soberane Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 12:42 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 12:04 PM)Soberane Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 09:07 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 10:31 PM)Soberane Wrote:  

Marriage had nothing to do with the government as an institution, at the beginning a man and a women will get married with a ceremony at the church, close friends and family, not paper signed. It was a moral code, a way to say, "they can fuck and make babies and not face shame".

The point of marriage was to secure the offspring, give them a stable family and creating a community where everyone else is doing the same, so that society as a whole move forward.


As the government grow every generation. The government saw a huge potential in getting involve in the institution, when the government and population was small, the government had little control over people lives, (this was a reason to not allow women the right to vote, legal matters never affect them directly).

When gays beg the government to legalize gay marriage, in reality they are asking
just to an institution that got involved in the original marriage. Government did not create marriage, but gays behave like it did.

I agree, the solution i would like the most is to have government stop recognizing all marriages. You can name anyone in your will and name anyone for shared health benefits etc.

Shared property should be managed through separate agreements.

Marriage should be established through religious or personal commitment only. Gays who want to say "we are married" can go ahead and say it and be held accountable to themselves. People who want to say "we are married under the eyes of god" can be held accountable to themselves, god and shamed by their church if they abandon those vows.

Especially nowadays, when paternity can be established by DNA, the state doesn't need some sort of convoluted way to establish who is legally responsible for a child's well being tied to marriage.

The problem is that gays are very narcissistic, they could have a lawyer sing some documents to show who is responsible for who, just like old people can declare one of his/her kids to be the one with legal power when in the hospital, but they want to imitated what heterosexual people do, they beg the government for marriage, and now they want to force bakeries and other business to celebrate their so called marriage, with the help of the government, how big is a gay population in the USA? around 2% if I remember correctly, if you want to see society collapse in action, ask yourself how such small population has so much power over the media, government, and private corporations.

They only have the power the cultural marxists in high places give them. The fact that there are gays trying to use the law to force Christians to either serve them or go out of business should be proof enough what is at work here.

They have yet to do this to Muslims, Jews, or any other religious group in this country as far as I know.

They are pawns of their Satanic masters.

The same way PETA never attack "Hell's Angels" for wearing real leather, the part that really make people angry is that for liberalism and others SJW bullshit to exist they need a Christian conservative base to allow them to, minority rights do not exist outside Christian countries.
....

In theory, by attacking Christian conservative, liberals are attacking themselves. Once there is not more Christians, they will go not longer exist.

Great argument. I'm filing that one for the few green activists that are left. I'll also add in "why not go after the blue oyster crowd wearing buttless leather chaps"

[CRR]

@Sobrene - I see what you are saying, but if one were to split the country in two liberal/conservative, on one side you'd have laxer gun laws, a stricter moral code, and less business regulations. On the other you'd have a more European style government (more gun control, more business regulations, laxer moral code). But on both sides, people would still find a way to combat each other, tea partiers vs establishment conservatives, and hippies/SJWs vs more traditional liberals (i.e. people like me).

In reading the article, what stands out is that they were opposing 'transgenders' using bathrooms and such.

I'm liberal and, as I alluded to this above, I oppose this too. Again, I have no issue with gay people. But I think 'transgender' is a mental disorder that needs treatment. The term 'tolerance' has been twisted to mean acceptance of everything as normal. And that's the thing, I'm not advocating that we treat 'transgenders' poorly, rather identifying it for what it is, and dealing with it accordingly.

But that's the thing with SJWs. If you don't wholly agree with them, you're labeled a bigot and need to be removed from society. Hell, I'm Jewish, and I recall the outcry in Hollywood to 'shun' Mel Gibson. Never mind the hypocrisy of the behavior they tolerate, but there is always the simple solution, which is to just not see their show or movie. Mel Gibson has a right to make movies, the Duggars have a right to make a show, I have a right not to watch them.

[Soberane]

(11-22-2014 12:08 PM)CRR Wrote:  

@Sobrene - I see what you are saying, but if one were to split the country in two liberal/conservative, on one side you'd have laxer gun laws, a stricter moral code, and less business regulations. On the other you'd have a more European style government (more gun control, more business regulations, laxer moral code). But on both sides, people would still find a way to combat each other, tea partiers vs establishment conservatives, and hippies/SJWs vs more traditional liberals (i.e. people like me).

In reading the article, what stands out is that they were opposing 'transgenders' using bathrooms and such.

I'm liberal and, as I alluded to this above, I oppose this too. Again, I have no issue with gay people. But I think 'transgender' is a mental disorder that needs treatment. The term 'tolerance' has been twisted to mean acceptance of everything as normal. And that's the thing, I'm not advocating that we treat 'transgenders' poorly, rather identifying it for what it is, and dealing with it accordingly.

But that's the thing with SJWs. If you don't wholly agree with them, you're labeled a bigot and need to be removed from society. Hell, I'm Jewish, and I recall the outcry in Hollywood to 'shun' Mel Gibson. Never mind the hypocrisy of the behavior they tolerate, but there is always the simple solution, which is to just not see their show or movie. Mel Gibson has a right to make movies, the Duggars have a right to make a show, I have a right not to watch them.

You don't need to split the country in half, just look at states's political views.

Texas is very conservative state, second biggest state, and with very pro gun laws, they have a good economy compared to most states in USA.

Illinois, Chicago mostly, Detroit, and New York have very liberal progressives policies, Detroit is a shithole, Chicago "Chiraq", guns, gangs and everyday violence is rampant there.

Detroit alongside looks like a war zone

New York is one of the states where residents have the desire move out.


Kill or hurt a thief, murderer in New York and you can be persecuted.

Democrats, liberals, progressives want to turn Texas blue, it is called "Battleground Texas"

You don't see Conservative trying to turn Detroit red.

[CRR]

Yes, Detroit is an abomination, but there are a plethora of towns across the South and Bible Belt that ain't exactly beacons of American exceptionalism.

Anyway, comparing cities to states is like apples to oranges, especially in politics. I watched the opening of the Stossel show (to be honest I don't watch tv news ever), and the implication that buying a handgun in California is hard is only accurate if you think a ten day waiting period is hard. And opening a business doesn't take years, it's actually easy. I've done both (purchased a handgun and assisted in opening businesses). California's problems are the high taxes, but that's a whole other discussion.

Of course Democrats are going to try to turn Texas "blue", just as Republicans are trying to turn Pennsylvania, Colorado and Virginia "red". If they had a shot in California or New York, they surely would give it a try, and I wouldn't blame them.

And yes people like to rip Cali and NY, but they are both economic hubs to the entire world. From the financial sector to Silicon Valley to agriculture to yes, Hollywood. And I say that without dismissing Texas, with it's abundance of oil and other natural resources, and leading universities and medical centers (MD Anderson). Point being, I don't think it's an either or proposition.

Anyway, not to get too sidetracked, the problem arises when thought police come around. And the hypocrisy. For example, I hated about a decade ago listening to Republicans talk about 'moral values' when so many of them were adulterers and closeted gays. On the flip side, I actually respect the Chik-Fil-A owner for having the courage of his convictions by keeping his stores closed on Sundays. Point is, a code of conduct is a good thing, but people should be more or less left alone and people should practice what they preach.

This is why I'm borderline libertarian on social issues. I actually find it interesting that the SJWs are so anti-gun considering what might make a woman who has actually been stalked/sexual assaulted feel safe? A concealed carry permit. Guns, drugs (I believe in treatment, not incarceration, which I think puts me in line with Rand Paul), gays…do what you want.

But where the SJWs cross the line is far beyond what we've seen before, which is they demonize anyone who puts up any sort of disagreement, or if you are even ok with someone disagreeing with them. I've experienced this. During the whole Duck Dynasty controversy, I said to a few people "why are any of you surprised that an old religious guy from Mississippi is against gay marriage? He's not advocating violence, he just has a different viewpoint. You are entitled to not watch his show". And again, I've never even seen his show. Of course I caught hell for that, but it's actually kind of fun to watch them lose their collective heads. They advocate tolerance of everything, except for an opposing viewpoint. And I hate that nonsense.

[Haig]

Course they want them off the air.

They are happily married, conservative and white.

If they were Non binary, other kin with asexual pans/trans-atlantic able bodied, wheel chair bound oompa lumpas on the other hand.....

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(11-22-2014 05:28 PM)CRR Wrote:  

Yes, Detroit is an abomination, but there are a plethora of towns across the South and Bible Belt that ain't exactly beacons of American exceptionalism.

(Edit.)

Anyway, not to get too sidetracked, the problem arises when thought police come around. And the hypocrisy. For example, I hated about a decade ago listening to Republicans talk about 'moral values' when so many of them were adulterers and closeted gays. On the flip side, I actually respect the Chik-Fil-A owner for having the courage of his convictions by keeping his stores closed on Sundays. Point is, a code of conduct is a good thing, but people should be more or less left alone and people should practice what they preach.

This is why I'm borderline libertarian on social issues. I actually find it interesting that the SJWs are so anti-gun considering what might make a woman who has actually been stalked/sexual assaulted feel safe? A concealed carry permit. Guns, drugs (I believe in treatment, not incarceration, which I think puts me in line with Rand Paul), gays…do what you want.

But where the SJWs cross the line is far beyond what we've seen before, which is they demonize anyone who puts up any sort of disagreement, or if you are even ok with someone disagreeing with them. I've experienced this. During the whole Duck Dynasty controversy, I said to a few people "why are any of you surprised that an old religious guy from Mississippi is against gay marriage? He's not advocating violence, he just has a different viewpoint. You are entitled to not watch his show". And again, I've never even seen his show. Of course I caught hell for that, but it's actually kind of fun to watch them lose their collective heads. They advocate tolerance of everything, except for an opposing viewpoint. And I hate that nonsense.

"But where the SJWs cross the line is far beyond what we've seen before, which is they demonize anyone who puts up any sort of disagreement, or if you are even ok with someone disagreeing with them."

Actually the religious right used to do this. Here is one big example:

In the early 1970s, there was a TV show called "Bridget Loves Bernie," which was about a Jewish guy who married a Christian girl. Religious groups found it offensive and the pressure caused the network to cancel the series.

According to Tom Shales in the Washington Post: " It was the highest-rated television program ever to be canceled after only one season."

The SJW and feminist crowd has now replaced the religious right in doing this (the Return of Kings article on the UK comedian Dapper Laughs is just this kind of horror story).

But what's troubling to me is how the new censors don't see the similarity with the old. It's as if they think "Their censorship was bad and oppressive, but ours is for the greater good." I'm sure the religious right thought they were above the '50s McCarthyists too.

[CimbomluBkk]

This is why I like Putin
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-anti...-detained/

[CRR]

(11-22-2014 07:42 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 05:28 PM)CRR Wrote:  

Yes, Detroit is an abomination, but there are a plethora of towns across the South and Bible Belt that ain't exactly beacons of American exceptionalism.

(Edit.)

Anyway, not to get too sidetracked, the problem arises when thought police come around. And the hypocrisy. For example, I hated about a decade ago listening to Republicans talk about 'moral values' when so many of them were adulterers and closeted gays. On the flip side, I actually respect the Chik-Fil-A owner for having the courage of his convictions by keeping his stores closed on Sundays. Point is, a code of conduct is a good thing, but people should be more or less left alone and people should practice what they preach.

This is why I'm borderline libertarian on social issues. I actually find it interesting that the SJWs are so anti-gun considering what might make a woman who has actually been stalked/sexual assaulted feel safe? A concealed carry permit. Guns, drugs (I believe in treatment, not incarceration, which I think puts me in line with Rand Paul), gays…do what you want.

But where the SJWs cross the line is far beyond what we've seen before, which is they demonize anyone who puts up any sort of disagreement, or if you are even ok with someone disagreeing with them. I've experienced this. During the whole Duck Dynasty controversy, I said to a few people "why are any of you surprised that an old religious guy from Mississippi is against gay marriage? He's not advocating violence, he just has a different viewpoint. You are entitled to not watch his show". And again, I've never even seen his show. Of course I caught hell for that, but it's actually kind of fun to watch them lose their collective heads. They advocate tolerance of everything, except for an opposing viewpoint. And I hate that nonsense.

"But where the SJWs cross the line is far beyond what we've seen before, which is they demonize anyone who puts up any sort of disagreement, or if you are even ok with someone disagreeing with them."

Actually the religious right used to do this. Here is one big example:

In the early 1970s, there was a TV show called "Bridget Loves Bernie," which was about a Jewish guy who married a Christian girl. Religious groups found it offensive and the pressure caused the network to cancel the series.

According to Tom Shales in the Washington Post: " It was the highest-rated television program ever to be canceled after only one season."

The SJW and feminist crowd has now replaced the religious right in doing this (the Return of Kings article on the UK comedian Dapper Laughs is just this kind of horror story).

But what's troubling to me is how the new censors don't see the similarity with the old. It's as if they think "Their censorship was bad and oppressive, but ours is for the greater good." I'm sure the religious right thought they were above the '50s McCarthyists too.

Right.

I just read that article, and this part stood out:

Through the use of petitions and Twitter attacks (as always), he was first forced to cancel his stand-up tour after the student union at Cardiff University stated that his comedy “trivialized rape, unprotected sex, and dehumanizing of women.”

Ironic considering

1) Trivialized rape - SJWs do this every time when they conflate 'street harassment' (which as we know is really classism and racism in disguise) with rape.

2) Unprotected sex - SJWs are the ones who advocate being a huge, fat slut and single motherhood.

3) Dehumanizing of women - Lena Dunham is the SJW hero, and she is a walking embodiment of the decline of women. Fat, unattractive, unfeminine.

Yet I still don't advocate taking her show off TV. Thank the lord I can choose not to watch it.