Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
lol, now I"M getting a match.com ad. I bet they picked up on the word zoosk in the thread.
lol, now I"M getting a match.com ad. I bet they picked up on the word zoosk in the thread.
And I'm getting a Ford Focus ad, also somethng I have never researched on line. But I no doubt have used the word 'focus' here and there in the course of this thread. So who knows?
Speaking of 'focus', we've wandered pretty far away from the intent of the OP. Mac needs to wander back in here and get us back on course.
Well it still makes one wonder why sites would have possible pics of girls seemingly to young to date streaming across their banner like that. There was only one face that I noticed in with the rest, but that may be one to many if she wasn't supposed to be on there. Sex trafficking is a serious issue in this nation, and it amazes me how sometimes it is right out in broad daylight like that, yet it goes un-noticed ?So the pictures running on the face of these adds aren't random ? How would you know that ? Have you been browsing such adds and have first hand experience of these things ? I have never browsed these sites, so how are these pics connected to my browsing the net ? Now I'm not the only one using this computer, but I will investgate more into it. The pics are appearing as random with women who are the ages that apear to be in their twenties or so, but some of the pics are (IMHO) the faces of girls that are under age (around 15 or so). I only noticed one when looking up at the add as it streamed, but that is something that shoudn't be coming from sites that are supposed to be legit right ? Hec I am so old that the girls may have been 18, because everyone looks young to me anymore..LOL
It was a joke, Snoopy. But yes, some of the google ads are based on what I would call google's spying on your internet activity.
I have a banner ad blocker but only works once in awhile.
Harvey Milk, or DD, ummm I think DD is the best bet to stick with round here, so I'm sticking with DD.Well it still makes one wonder why sites would have possible pics of girls seemingly to young to date streaming across their banner like that. There was only one face that I noticed in with the rest, but that may be one to many if she wasn't supposed to be on there. Sex trafficking is a serious issue in this nation, and it amazes me how sometimes it is right out in broad daylight like that, yet it goes un-noticed ?It was a joke, Snoopy. But yes, some of the google ads are based on what I would call google's spying on your internet activity.
I have a banner ad blocker but only works once in awhile.
This is a Duck Dynasty thread. See the connection?
And...it obviously did not go unnoticed.
Phil Robertson can say what he wants to, when he wants to and anytime he wants to.
When I look at Robertson AWAY from all of this I see a man that EARNED everything he has, started his business from nothing, EARNED his spot at QB on a college football team, earned EVERYTHING he has.
Words can not express how much I admire him in that regard.
And he has done an outstanding job raising his family. I have watched the show a few times, do not really care for it but watched it with family and friends and I believe the family and business side of the show is all true and especially liked the portrayal of Willie as the one child that is best at running the business as most family businesses it is smart to have the best do the best.
But on this matter of he was stopped from speaking his religious beliefs, that is bogus to the core.
And to date nothing has stopped him and nothing will.
And I support that 100%.
So in no way can any of you Christian victim myth conspiracy buffs claim that is true. And I already debunked the fraudulent claims that when an employer disciplines an employee for ANY SPEECH, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE, that is persecution. It is not. You keep repeating that lie as just like Goebbels said, the more one repeats a lie the more the gullible and naive sheep will believe it.
A&E suspended Robertson when this broke, so is that not a form of persecution because of his speaking his opinion on what was asked of him by the GQ reporter ?#1 fact we have is Robertson was not persecuted
When A&E suspended him, it immediately limited his speech, and even threatened his career in the process.#2 is NO ONE limited his speech or stopped him from speaking anything he wanted to.
Is this actually a quote by him ? Please give us the actual transcript from which you have read and do interpret this in that way, because I don't believe he said this in the context of what you are saying here.Good to get those out of the way.
So let us now look at what he said:
Older men should only marry teenage girls.
Yes he is saying that when a young man and woman are somewhere in the area of 15 or 16 years old, then it is wise to wed at that age if one can, and if the two are in love in this way then they should do this like him and his wife did is his opinion, but this is an old timers view of what worked for him and his wife, and yet it may not work for others these days of course. Now I am not for marriage at that age these days, but it probably would have been ok back in the farming days of old, and when people were a lot more developed in their minds and thinking at younger ages back then or more so than they are now."You got to marry these girls when they are 15 or 16 years old" as Phil married his bride when she was 16 after dating her while from age 14.
You folks eh ? And who are you as a folk in this world, are you Christian, Secularist, Muslim, Jewish, I mean who are you actually ? You've labeled us, now how can we label you or what do you want us to label you as ?And you folks put him up as your Christian role model.
No it isn't, because Phil said himself that he treats everyone good, just as he would have them treat him good as well, but that it just wasn't his cup of tea in what that lifestyle represents, and then when you couple that with the popularity of that show, it just drove some people crazy from him speaking like that to an interviewer who set him up in that way, especially as popular as he is on that show. And even though he was set up, he still chose his words righteously and decently, and that drove his detractors even crazier.The facts are in on how Christianity demonized and persecuted homosexuals for hundreds of years and that mind set is 100% where Robertson is coming from.
You are countering your own self, and with your own words in which you had started out this post with.He can say what he wants to but on the flip side when you see groups, family members, organizations or anyone else stand up and state to the employer A & E "Hey, this guy is wrong with what he says about homosexuals. We will pull our sponsorships and support of those sponsors if you continue to have him as your employee" that is 100% appropriate for those that believe HE IS wrong in those beliefs and should be held accountable by his employer. To claim otherwise is censorship of the public that buys those products.
Now we are all morons with our eyes closed says you ?Take a good look at his interview, a real good look. Only a moron that has their eyes closed believes he "loves" homosexuals and only condemns their sins.
Why you good folks, all the while claiming to follow the teachings of peace and love of Jesus, continue to put this guy up as your poster child of what a Christian ought to be shows your love for a TV show that you like over common sense.
This issue is not about a Christian being persecuted.
This issue is about an employee being disciplined for what the employer believes to be outrageous behavior.
How many of you want your daughters to marry at age 16?
Phil Robertson can say what he wants to, when he wants to and anytime he wants to.
When I look at Robertson AWAY from all of this I see a man that EARNED everything he has, started his business from nothing, EARNED his spot at QB on a college football team, earned EVERYTHING he has.
Words can not express how much I admire him in that regard.
And he has done an outstanding job raising his family. I have watched the show a few times, do not really care for it but watched it with family and friends and I believe the family and business side of the show is all true and especially liked the portrayal of Willie as the one child that is best at running the business as most family businesses it is smart to have the best do the best.
But on this matter of he was stopped from speaking his religious beliefs, that is bogus to the core.
And to date nothing has stopped him and nothing will.
And I support that 100%.
So in no way can any of you Christian victim myth conspiracy buffs claim that is true. And I already debunked the fraudulent claims that when an employer disciplines an employee for ANY SPEECH, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE, that is persecution. It is not. You keep repeating that lie as just like Goebbels said, the more one repeats a lie the more the gullible and naive sheep will believe it.
A&E suspended Robertson when this broke, so is that not a form of persecution because of his speaking his opinion on what was asked of him by the GQ reporter ?#1 fact we have is Robertson was not persecuted
When A&E suspended him, it immediately limited his speech, and even threatened his career in the process.
Is this actually a quote by him ? Please give us the actual transcript from which you have read and do interpret this in that way, because I don't believe he said this in the context of what you are saying here.
Yes he is saying that when a young man and woman are somewhere in the area of 15 or 16 years old, then it is wise to wed at that age if one can, and if the two are in love in this way then they should do this like him and his wife did is his opinion, but this is an old timers view of what worked for him and his wife, and yet it may not work for others these days of course. Now I am not for marriage at that age these days, but it probably would have been ok back in the farming days of old, and when people were a lot more developed in their minds and thinking at younger ages back then or more so than they are now.
You folks eh ? And who are you as a folk in this world, are you Christian, Secularist, Muslim, Jewish, I mean who are you actually ? You've labeled us, now how can we label you or what do you want us to label you as ?
No it isn't, because Phil said himself that he treats everyone good, just as he would have them treat him good as well, but that it just wasn't his cup of tea in what that lifestyle represents, and then when you couple that with the popularity of that show, it just drove some people crazy from him speaking like that to an interviewer who set him up in that way, especially as popular as he is on that show. And even though he was set up, he still chose his words righteously and decently, and that drove his detractors even crazier.
You are countering your own self, and with your own words in which you had started out this post with.
Now we are all morons with our eyes closed says you ?Take a good look at his interview, a real good look. Only a moron that has their eyes closed believes he "loves" homosexuals and only condemns their sins.
Why you good folks, all the while claiming to follow the teachings of peace and love of Jesus, continue to put this guy up as your poster child of what a Christian ought to be shows your love for a TV show that you like over common sense.
This issue is not about a Christian being persecuted.
This issue is about an employee being disciplined for what the employer believes to be outrageous behavior.
How many of you want your daughters to marry at age 16?
I guess we should all just sit back and watch you stumble on your own words here, because that is what you are doing ya know ? You started out great, then you just went down, down, down into a burning ring of fire, and it burns, burns, burns as those flames get higher, the ring of fire, the ring of fire.
Fake story eh ? Then what is wrong with Gadawg if it is a fake story ? That road goes both ways don't it ?Phil Robertson can say what he wants to, when he wants to and anytime he wants to.
When I look at Robertson AWAY from all of this I see a man that EARNED everything he has, started his business from nothing, EARNED his spot at QB on a college football team, earned EVERYTHING he has.
Words can not express how much I admire him in that regard.
And he has done an outstanding job raising his family. I have watched the show a few times, do not really care for it but watched it with family and friends and I believe the family and business side of the show is all true and especially liked the portrayal of Willie as the one child that is best at running the business as most family businesses it is smart to have the best do the best.
But on this matter of he was stopped from speaking his religious beliefs, that is bogus to the core.
And to date nothing has stopped him and nothing will.
And I support that 100%.
So in no way can any of you Christian victim myth conspiracy buffs claim that is true. And I already debunked the fraudulent claims that when an employer disciplines an employee for ANY SPEECH, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE, that is persecution. It is not. You keep repeating that lie as just like Goebbels said, the more one repeats a lie the more the gullible and naive sheep will believe it.
A&E suspended Robertson when this broke, so is that not a form of persecution because of his speaking his opinion on what was asked of him by the GQ reporter ?
When A&E suspended him, it immediately limited his speech, and even threatened his career in the process.
No. It didn't. And obviously it had no effect on his 'career' except to make his business far more well-known. There's no limitation on what he can say by his Producer simply exercising a clause in a contract they both signed.
Is this actually a quote by him ? Please give us the actual transcript from which you have read and do interpret this in that way, because I don't believe he said this in the context of what you are saying here.
Yes he is saying that when a young man and woman are somewhere in the area of 15 or 16 years old, then it is wise to wed at that age if one can, and if the two are in love in this way then they should do this like him and his wife did is his opinion, but this is an old timers view of what worked for him and his wife, and yet it may not work for others these days of course. Now I am not for marriage at that age these days, but it probably would have been ok back in the farming days of old, and when people were a lot more developed in their minds and thinking at younger ages back then or more so than they are now.
You folks eh ? And who are you as a folk in this world, are you Christian, Secularist, Muslim, Jewish, I mean who are you actually ? You've labeled us, now how can we label you or what do you want us to label you as ?
No it isn't, because Phil said himself that he treats everyone good, just as he would have them treat him good as well, but that it just wasn't his cup of tea in what that lifestyle represents, and then when you couple that with the popularity of that show, it just drove some people crazy from him speaking like that to an interviewer who set him up in that way, especially as popular as he is on that show. And even though he was set up, he still chose his words righteously and decently, and that drove his detractors even crazier.
You are countering your own self, and with your own words in which you had started out this post with.
Now we are all morons with our eyes closed says you ?
Why you good folks, all the while claiming to follow the teachings of peace and love of Jesus, continue to put this guy up as your poster child of what a Christian ought to be shows your love for a TV show that you like over common sense.
This issue is not about a Christian being persecuted.
This issue is about an employee being disciplined for what the employer believes to be outrageous behavior.
How many of you want your daughters to marry at age 16?
I guess we should all just sit back and watch you stumble on your own words here, because that is what you are doing ya know ? You started out great, then you just went down, down, down into a burning ring of fire, and it burns, burns, burns as those flames get higher, the ring of fire, the ring of fire.
You've melted down into an emotional defensiveness here but Gadawg has been spot-on in his observations thorughout this fake story. You should put down the defensiveness and listen.
Hey [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] you got that Robinson contract to shower yet?
Phil Robertson can say what he wants to, when he wants to and anytime he wants to.
When I look at Robertson AWAY from all of this I see a man that EARNED everything he has, started his business from nothing, EARNED his spot at QB on a college football team, earned EVERYTHING he has.
Words can not express how much I admire him in that regard.
And he has done an outstanding job raising his family. I have watched the show a few times, do not really care for it but watched it with family and friends and I believe the family and business side of the show is all true and especially liked the portrayal of Willie as the one child that is best at running the business as most family businesses it is smart to have the best do the best.
But on this matter of he was stopped from speaking his religious beliefs, that is bogus to the core.
And to date nothing has stopped him and nothing will.
And I support that 100%.
So in no way can any of you Christian victim myth conspiracy buffs claim that is true. And I already debunked the fraudulent claims that when an employer disciplines an employee for ANY SPEECH, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE, that is persecution. It is not. You keep repeating that lie as just like Goebbels said, the more one repeats a lie the more the gullible and naive sheep will believe it.
A&E suspended Robertson when this broke, so is that not a form of persecution because of his speaking his opinion on what was asked of him by the GQ reporter ?#1 fact we have is Robertson was not persecuted
When A&E suspended him, it immediately limited his speech, and even threatened his career in the process.
Is this actually a quote by him ? Please give us the actual transcript from which you have read and do interpret this in that way, because I don't believe he said this in the context of what you are saying here.
Yes he is saying that when a young man and woman are somewhere in the area of 15 or 16 years old, then it is wise to wed at that age if one can, and if the two are in love in this way then they should do this like him and his wife did is his opinion, but this is an old timers view of what worked for him and his wife, and yet it may not work for others these days of course. Now I am not for marriage at that age these days, but it probably would have been ok back in the farming days of old, and when people were a lot more developed in their minds and thinking at younger ages back then or more so than they are now.
You folks eh ? And who are you as a folk in this world, are you Christian, Secularist, Muslim, Jewish, I mean who are you actually ? You've labeled us, now how can we label you or what do you want us to label you as ?
No it isn't, because Phil said himself that he treats everyone good, just as he would have them treat him good as well, but that it just wasn't his cup of tea in what that lifestyle represents, and then when you couple that with the popularity of that show, it just drove some people crazy from him speaking like that to an interviewer who set him up in that way, especially as popular as he is on that show. And even though he was set up, he still chose his words righteously and decently, and that drove his detractors even crazier.
You are countering your own self, and with your own words in which you had started out this post with.
Now we are all morons with our eyes closed says you ?Take a good look at his interview, a real good look. Only a moron that has their eyes closed believes he "loves" homosexuals and only condemns their sins.
Why you good folks, all the while claiming to follow the teachings of peace and love of Jesus, continue to put this guy up as your poster child of what a Christian ought to be shows your love for a TV show that you like over common sense.
This issue is not about a Christian being persecuted.
This issue is about an employee being disciplined for what the employer believes to be outrageous behavior.
How many of you want your daughters to marry at age 16?
I guess we should all just sit back and watch you stumble on your own words here, because that is what you are doing ya know ? You started out great, then you just went down, down, down into a burning ring of fire, and it burns, burns, burns as those flames get higher, the ring of fire, the ring of fire.
"When A & E suspended him they immediately limited his speech"
That is 100% TOTAL BULL SHIT as Robertson was on TV stating that he WOULD NOT stop sharing his beliefs.
Are we wrong, and who was playing the victim clan in all of this ? I don't think it was the Robertson's that's for sure.And you claim I am "stumbling on my words".
You can not admit you and your Christian victim clan are wrong as NO ONE has limited Robertson's speech at any time.
Is that right ?NO ONE has limited Robertson's speech and even if they did it is LEGAL be it religious or otherwise.
It can be both and you know it. How do you think that defamation of character laws are up held in court ?Persecution is when people condemn and discriminate against you because of WHO YOU ARE, not what you say.
"When A & E suspended him they immediately limited his speech"
That is 100% TOTAL BULL SHIT as Robertson was on TV stating that he WOULD NOT stop sharing his beliefs.
Where was he on television stating this rebuttal from, otherwise the one in which you claim that he did in concerning what had happened to him with that suspension and all ? It wasn't from A&E was it ? Yes he may have made a statement like you say, and it was one that he was forced into making due to his suspension, and of course it was from another doorway because the one he had the contract with (A&E) had attempted to close a door on him, and this for what he said in the interview or should I say the set up he encountered with GQ.
Are we wrong, and who was playing the victim clan in all of this ? I don't think it was the Robertson's that's for sure.And you claim I am "stumbling on my words".
You can not admit you and your Christian victim clan are wrong as NO ONE has limited Robertson's speech at any time.
Is that right ?NO ONE has limited Robertson's speech and even if they did it is LEGAL be it religious or otherwise.
It can be both and you know it. How do you think that defamation of character laws are up held in court ?Persecution is when people condemn and discriminate against you because of WHO YOU ARE, not what you say.
"When A & E suspended him they immediately limited his speech"
That is 100% TOTAL BULL SHIT as Robertson was on TV stating that he WOULD NOT stop sharing his beliefs.
Where was he on television stating this rebuttal from, otherwise the one in which you claim that he did in concerning what had happened to him with that suspension and all ? It wasn't from A&E was it ? Yes he may have made a statement like you say, and it was one that he was forced into making due to his suspension, and of course it was from another doorway because the one he had the contract with (A&E) had attempted to close a door on him, and this for what he said in the interview or should I say the set up he encountered with GQ.
Are we wrong, and who was playing the victim clan in all of this ? I don't think it was the Robertson's that's for sure.
Is that right ?
It can be both and you know it. How do you think that defamation of character laws are up held in court ?Persecution is when people condemn and discriminate against you because of WHO YOU ARE, not what you say.
Robertson is a public figure under all libel and defamation civil law in this country. Accordingly, he has no standing on any defamation of character actions as all of those fall under free speech per the Constitution.
The law is strong on this issue and which Justices are the strongest on this?
The conservative ones.
Phil Robertson's First Amendment Rights were not violated in this case. The Bill of Rights is applicable to laws passed by the Federal government, and the federal government ALONE.
The Bill of Rights was intended to keep the FEDERAL government from becoming too strong-NOT STATE GOVERNMENTS and certainly NOT PRIVATE BUSINESS LIKE A & E.
Your ignorance of the Constitution limits your rank opinions here 100% invalid.
The Supreme Court has held multiple times over the last 200+ years that the Bill of Rights WAS NOT AND NEVER INTENDED TO BE, incorporated to the individual states by means of the 14th Amendment.
Either you support a limited Federal government or you do not.
You do not as you are a closet liberal.
The Bill of Rights is applicable to laws passed by the Federal government, and the federal government ALONE.
The Bill of Rights was intended to keep the FEDERAL government from becoming too strong-NOT STATE GOVERNMENTS...The Supreme Court has held multiple times over the last 200+ years that the Bill of Rights WAS NOT AND NEVER INTENDED TO BE, incorporated to the individual states by means of the 14th Amendment.
Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have
acquiesced in the Courts incorporation of certain guaran*tees in the Bill of Rights because it is both long estab*lished and narrowly limited. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S.
266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightfor*ward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.
"When A & E suspended him they immediately limited his speech"
That is 100% TOTAL BULL SHIT as Robertson was on TV stating that he WOULD NOT stop sharing his beliefs.
Where was he on television stating this rebuttal from, otherwise the one in which you claim that he did in concerning what had happened to him with that suspension and all ? It wasn't from A&E was it ? Yes he may have made a statement like you say, and it was one that he was forced into making due to his suspension, and of course it was from another doorway because the one he had the contract with (A&E) had attempted to close a door on him, and this for what he said in the interview or should I say the set up he encountered with GQ.
Are we wrong, and who was playing the victim clan in all of this ? I don't think it was the Robertson's that's for sure.
Is that right ?
It can be both and you know it. How do you think that defamation of character laws are up held in court ?Persecution is when people condemn and discriminate against you because of WHO YOU ARE, not what you say.
Robertson is a public figure under all libel and defamation civil law in this country. Accordingly, he has no standing on any defamation of character actions as all of those fall under free speech per the Constitution.
The law is strong on this issue and which Justices are the strongest on this?
The conservative ones.
Phil Robertson's First Amendment Rights were not violated in this case. The Bill of Rights is applicable to laws passed by the Federal government, and the federal government ALONE.
The Bill of Rights was intended to keep the FEDERAL government from becoming too strong-NOT STATE GOVERNMENTS and certainly NOT PRIVATE BUSINESS LIKE A & E.
Your ignorance of the Constitution limits your rank opinions here 100% invalid.
The Supreme Court has held multiple times over the last 200+ years that the Bill of Rights WAS NOT AND NEVER INTENDED TO BE, incorporated to the individual states by means of the 14th Amendment.
Either you support a limited Federal government or you do not.
You do not as you are a closet liberal.
