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.
Harvey Milk, or DD, ummm I think DD is the best bet to stick with round here, so I'm sticking with DD.
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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 ?
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.
