Duck Dynasty Robertson's rape/murder fantasy

[hadit]

Obama once said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". When will he be held accountable for his dispicable words? See how this works?

Get back to us when Obama is trying to convert anyone to your pagan religious beliefs with those terms.

Obama is the POTUS. He has immeasurably more power than Phil Robertson does. The point, however, remains. You wish to deride PR for using verbal imagery while excusing BO for doing the same thing.

Except that Obama didn't do the same thing.

He talked about bringing a gun to deal with Republicans. If you're going to take everyone at their literal word and ignore when they obviously don't mean it literally, then you would expect Obama to literally walk into a conference room packing heat. Or are you saying that you want to just pick and choose when to take someone literally and when not to do so, based on whether it's politically expedient?

As opposed to your perverted religious expediency.

Your desperation is palpable.

The Duck Dysentery mouthpiece has a track record of spewing venom against those he hates because they don't share his cult beliefs.

Now you're all over the map. Did you really expect Obama to walk into a conference room with a gun or not?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Get back to us when Obama is trying to convert anyone to your pagan religious beliefs with those terms.

Obama is the POTUS. He has immeasurably more power than Phil Robertson does. The point, however, remains. You wish to deride PR for using verbal imagery while excusing BO for doing the same thing.

Except that Obama didn't do the same thing.

He talked about bringing a gun to deal with Republicans. If you're going to take everyone at their literal word and ignore when they obviously don't mean it literally, then you would expect Obama to literally walk into a conference room packing heat. Or are you saying that you want to just pick and choose when to take someone literally and when not to do so, based on whether it's politically expedient?

As opposed to your perverted religious expediency.

Your desperation is palpable.

The Duck Dysentery mouthpiece has a track record of spewing venom against those he hates because they don't share his cult beliefs.

Now you're all over the map. Did you really expect Obama to walk into a conference room with a gun or not?

Your feeble attempts to derail this thread and make it about Obama expose the fallacy of your position.

PR was preaching to the converted of YOUR religion using disgusting imagery. That is your problem. Be a man and own up to what you believe in.

 

[hadit]

Obama is the POTUS. He has immeasurably more power than Phil Robertson does. The point, however, remains. You wish to deride PR for using verbal imagery while excusing BO for doing the same thing.

Except that Obama didn't do the same thing.

He talked about bringing a gun to deal with Republicans. If you're going to take everyone at their literal word and ignore when they obviously don't mean it literally, then you would expect Obama to literally walk into a conference room packing heat. Or are you saying that you want to just pick and choose when to take someone literally and when not to do so, based on whether it's politically expedient?

As opposed to your perverted religious expediency.

Your desperation is palpable.

The Duck Dysentery mouthpiece has a track record of spewing venom against those he hates because they don't share his cult beliefs.

Now you're all over the map. Did you really expect Obama to walk into a conference room with a gun or not?

Your feeble attempts to derail this thread and make it about Obama expose the fallacy of your position.

PR was preaching to the converted of YOUR religion using disgusting imagery. That is your problem. Be a man and own up to what you believe in.

Well, we're making progress. At least you've come around to admitting that Phil was using imagery, and not literal reality. Now, if you could just find some evidence that he supports the actions he was talking about...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Except that Obama didn't do the same thing.

He talked about bringing a gun to deal with Republicans. If you're going to take everyone at their literal word and ignore when they obviously don't mean it literally, then you would expect Obama to literally walk into a conference room packing heat. Or are you saying that you want to just pick and choose when to take someone literally and when not to do so, based on whether it's politically expedient?

As opposed to your perverted religious expediency.

Your desperation is palpable.

The Duck Dysentery mouthpiece has a track record of spewing venom against those he hates because they don't share his cult beliefs.

Now you're all over the map. Did you really expect Obama to walk into a conference room with a gun or not?

Your feeble attempts to derail this thread and make it about Obama expose the fallacy of your position.

PR was preaching to the converted of YOUR religion using disgusting imagery. That is your problem. Be a man and own up to what you believe in.

Well, we're making progress. At least you've come around to admitting that Phil was using imagery, and not literal reality. Now, if you could just find some evidence that he supports the actions he was talking about...

Still grasping at straws?

Onus is on you to prove that I said that he was describing literal actions.

 

[hadit]

He talked about bringing a gun to deal with Republicans. If you're going to take everyone at their literal word and ignore when they obviously don't mean it literally, then you would expect Obama to literally walk into a conference room packing heat. Or are you saying that you want to just pick and choose when to take someone literally and when not to do so, based on whether it's politically expedient?

As opposed to your perverted religious expediency.

Your desperation is palpable.

The Duck Dysentery mouthpiece has a track record of spewing venom against those he hates because they don't share his cult beliefs.

Now you're all over the map. Did you really expect Obama to walk into a conference room with a gun or not?

Your feeble attempts to derail this thread and make it about Obama expose the fallacy of your position.

PR was preaching to the converted of YOUR religion using disgusting imagery. That is your problem. Be a man and own up to what you believe in.

Well, we're making progress. At least you've come around to admitting that Phil was using imagery, and not literal reality. Now, if you could just find some evidence that he supports the actions he was talking about...

Still grasping at straws?

Onus is on you to prove that I said that he was describing literal actions.

I cite this quote from you:

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Perhaps you did not literally MEAN "literally"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

As opposed to your perverted religious expediency.

Your desperation is palpable.

The Duck Dysentery mouthpiece has a track record of spewing venom against those he hates because they don't share his cult beliefs.

Now you're all over the map. Did you really expect Obama to walk into a conference room with a gun or not?

Your feeble attempts to derail this thread and make it about Obama expose the fallacy of your position.

PR was preaching to the converted of YOUR religion using disgusting imagery. That is your problem. Be a man and own up to what you believe in.

Well, we're making progress. At least you've come around to admitting that Phil was using imagery, and not literal reality. Now, if you could just find some evidence that he supports the actions he was talking about...

Still grasping at straws?

Onus is on you to prove that I said that he was describing literal actions.

I cite this quote from you:

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Perhaps you did not literally MEAN "literally"?

Oh brother! Did your home schooling miss out on basic English 101?

I was taking his WORDS literally! Do you know the difference between words and actions?

Your semantic squirming establishes beyond any doubt that you have forfeited your feeble position now.

 

[hadit]

Now you're all over the map. Did you really expect Obama to walk into a conference room with a gun or not?

Your feeble attempts to derail this thread and make it about Obama expose the fallacy of your position.

PR was preaching to the converted of YOUR religion using disgusting imagery. That is your problem. Be a man and own up to what you believe in.

Well, we're making progress. At least you've come around to admitting that Phil was using imagery, and not literal reality. Now, if you could just find some evidence that he supports the actions he was talking about...

Still grasping at straws?

Onus is on you to prove that I said that he was describing literal actions.

I cite this quote from you:

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Perhaps you did not literally MEAN "literally"?

Oh brother! Did your home schooling miss out on basic English 101?

I was taking his WORDS literally! Do you know the difference between words and actions?

Your semantic squirming establishes beyond any doubt that you have forfeited your feeble position now.

So, you say you're taking his words literally and apparently feel painted into a corner so are trying to get me to stop hitting you (watch out, verbal imagery in effect). What exactly do you mean by that statement? Do you think Phil literally HAS taken a knife to someone else in the way he described? How do you take a person's words literally when they are using verbal imagery to make a point if you do NOT believe they have done what they are talking about? Again, do you think Obama carried a gun into the conference room like he said he was going to do?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your feeble attempts to derail this thread and make it about Obama expose the fallacy of your position.

PR was preaching to the converted of YOUR religion using disgusting imagery. That is your problem. Be a man and own up to what you believe in.

Well, we're making progress. At least you've come around to admitting that Phil was using imagery, and not literal reality. Now, if you could just find some evidence that he supports the actions he was talking about...

Still grasping at straws?

Onus is on you to prove that I said that he was describing literal actions.

I cite this quote from you:

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Perhaps you did not literally MEAN "literally"?

Oh brother! Did your home schooling miss out on basic English 101?

I was taking his WORDS literally! Do you know the difference between words and actions?

Your semantic squirming establishes beyond any doubt that you have forfeited your feeble position now.

So, you say you're taking his words literally and apparently feel painted into a corner so are trying to get me to stop hitting you (watch out, verbal imagery in effect). What exactly do you mean by that statement? Do you think Phil literally HAS taken a knife to someone else in the way he described? How do you take a person's words literally when they are using verbal imagery to make a point if you do NOT believe they have done what they are talking about? Again, do you think Obama carried a gun into the conference room like he said he was going to do?

Thanks for tacitly admitting that you are a home schooled dropout. I am being paid to remediate your education. You can enroll in your local community college instead.

Whatever motivated PR to come up with the perverted fantasy is not something that I prepared to speculate about. Obviously he has some serious mental problems that need addressing with professional help but that is his problem.

Your inability to comprehend the subject matter disqualifies you from any further meaningful participation on this topic.

Have a nice day.

 

[hadit]

Well, we're making progress. At least you've come around to admitting that Phil was using imagery, and not literal reality. Now, if you could just find some evidence that he supports the actions he was talking about...

Still grasping at straws?

Onus is on you to prove that I said that he was describing literal actions.

I cite this quote from you:

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Perhaps you did not literally MEAN "literally"?

Oh brother! Did your home schooling miss out on basic English 101?

I was taking his WORDS literally! Do you know the difference between words and actions?

Your semantic squirming establishes beyond any doubt that you have forfeited your feeble position now.

So, you say you're taking his words literally and apparently feel painted into a corner so are trying to get me to stop hitting you (watch out, verbal imagery in effect). What exactly do you mean by that statement? Do you think Phil literally HAS taken a knife to someone else in the way he described? How do you take a person's words literally when they are using verbal imagery to make a point if you do NOT believe they have done what they are talking about? Again, do you think Obama carried a gun into the conference room like he said he was going to do?

Thanks for tacitly admitting that you are a home schooled dropout. I am being paid to remediate your education. You can enroll in your local community college instead.

Whatever motivated PR to come up with the perverted fantasy is not something that I prepared to speculate about. Obviously he has some serious mental problems that need addressing with professional help but that is his problem.

Your inability to comprehend the subject matter disqualifies you from any further meaningful participation on this topic.

Have a nice day.

Noted that you are unwilling/unable to demonstrate the ability to distinguish between a desire to perform literal violent action and the use of verbal imagery about violence to drive home a point.

Oh, and my day is going awesomely, because I just closed out a highly successful argument on the internet. That seems to happen to me quite frequently.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Utterly amazing what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence to support those beliefs.

 

[hadit]

Utterly amazing what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence to support those beliefs.

Even more amazing is what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence in order to justify hating someone.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Utterly amazing what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence to support those beliefs.

Even more amazing is what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence in order to justify hating someone.

Case in point!

Where is the evidence of "hating someone"?

Calling someone out for saying something utterly despicable doesn't automatically make that the equivalent of "hating" them.

But thanks once again for proving that you are not qualified to engage in this discussion.

 

[hadit]

Utterly amazing what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence to support those beliefs.

Even more amazing is what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence in order to justify hating someone.

Case in point!

Where is the evidence of "hating someone"?

Calling someone out for saying something utterly despicable doesn't automatically make that the equivalent of "hating" them.

But thanks once again for proving that you are not qualified to engage in this discussion.

Well, saying this about someone when there's no evidence for it is pretty hateful. You obviously know nothing about Phil Robertson.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset

Now, are you saying that you do NOT hate Phil Robertson? Just how DO you think about him?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Utterly amazing what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence to support those beliefs.

Even more amazing is what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence in order to justify hating someone.

Case in point!

Where is the evidence of "hating someone"?

Calling someone out for saying something utterly despicable doesn't automatically make that the equivalent of "hating" them.

But thanks once again for proving that you are not qualified to engage in this discussion.

Well, saying this about someone when there's no evidence for it is pretty hateful. You obviously know nothing about Phil Robertson.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset

Now, are you saying that you do NOT hate Phil Robertson? Just how DO you think about him?

What you believe is your problem, not mine.

Hate is a negative emotion that consumes the hater, not the hated.

I harbor no hatred for anyone.

That doesn't stop me from calling them out when they say something hateful which is what PR is on the record for doing when it comes to both gays and atheists.

Obviously you don't know the meaning of the term either. Try Googling it.

 

[hadit]

Utterly amazing what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence to support those beliefs.

Even more amazing is what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence in order to justify hating someone.

Case in point!

Where is the evidence of "hating someone"?

Calling someone out for saying something utterly despicable doesn't automatically make that the equivalent of "hating" them.

But thanks once again for proving that you are not qualified to engage in this discussion.

Well, saying this about someone when there's no evidence for it is pretty hateful. You obviously know nothing about Phil Robertson.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset

Now, are you saying that you do NOT hate Phil Robertson? Just how DO you think about him?

What you believe is your problem, not mine.

Hate is a negative emotion that consumes the hater, not the hated.

I harbor no hatred for anyone.

That doesn't stop me from calling them out when they say something hateful which is what PR is on the record for doing when it comes to both gays and atheists.

Obviously you don't know the meaning of the term either. Try Googling it.

I know you object to Phil using verbal imagery to drive home a point. What you fail to do is demonstrate how that imagery establishes any particular antipathy he may or may not feel toward the various groups you believe he hates. I mean, unless you're willing to say that Obama talking about bringing a gun to negotiations with Republicans means he hates them and wants to kill them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Utterly amazing what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence to support those beliefs.

Even more amazing is what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence in order to justify hating someone.

Case in point!

Where is the evidence of "hating someone"?

Calling someone out for saying something utterly despicable doesn't automatically make that the equivalent of "hating" them.

But thanks once again for proving that you are not qualified to engage in this discussion.

Well, saying this about someone when there's no evidence for it is pretty hateful. You obviously know nothing about Phil Robertson.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset

Now, are you saying that you do NOT hate Phil Robertson? Just how DO you think about him?

What you believe is your problem, not mine.

Hate is a negative emotion that consumes the hater, not the hated.

I harbor no hatred for anyone.

That doesn't stop me from calling them out when they say something hateful which is what PR is on the record for doing when it comes to both gays and atheists.

Obviously you don't know the meaning of the term either. Try Googling it.

I know you object to Phil using verbal imagery to drive home a point. What you fail to do is demonstrate how that imagery establishes any particular antipathy he may or may not feel toward the various groups you believe he hates. I mean, unless you're willing to say that Obama talking about bringing a gun to negotiations with Republicans means he hates them and wants to kill them.

Your puerile obsession with hatred is your problem.

Seek professional help.

 

[hadit]

Even more amazing is what some will believe with absolutely zero evidence in order to justify hating someone.

Case in point!

Where is the evidence of "hating someone"?

Calling someone out for saying something utterly despicable doesn't automatically make that the equivalent of "hating" them.

But thanks once again for proving that you are not qualified to engage in this discussion.

Well, saying this about someone when there's no evidence for it is pretty hateful. You obviously know nothing about Phil Robertson.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset

Now, are you saying that you do NOT hate Phil Robertson? Just how DO you think about him?

What you believe is your problem, not mine.

Hate is a negative emotion that consumes the hater, not the hated.

I harbor no hatred for anyone.

That doesn't stop me from calling them out when they say something hateful which is what PR is on the record for doing when it comes to both gays and atheists.

Obviously you don't know the meaning of the term either. Try Googling it.

I know you object to Phil using verbal imagery to drive home a point. What you fail to do is demonstrate how that imagery establishes any particular antipathy he may or may not feel toward the various groups you believe he hates. I mean, unless you're willing to say that Obama talking about bringing a gun to negotiations with Republicans means he hates them and wants to kill them.

Your puerile obsession with hatred is your problem.

Seek professional help.

You're not addressing what you think of Phil Robertson. You claim you bear no hate, but what you've said about him sounds pretty hateful.

 

[Vandalshandle]

When Phil starts talking about atheists having no restraint for raping and killing and molesting, he is talking about me. I don't take kindly to that. In fact, Phil has said everything I need to know about Phil, and as far as I am concerned, he represents the very worst of Christian self righteousness. I don't have to hate him to be disgusted with him. He is not worthy of hate. Ignorance is not hateful. It is pathetic.

 

[Mertex]

Are you saying that he was lying when he was talking about using a knife to castrate someone?

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him"

You have a seriously twisted mind if you think that proves he approves of doing it. He's relating a scenario, an illustration. Good grief, you're desperate to gin up hate toward the guy and what he stands for.

I am taking him literally based upon what he said. This came out of his sick and perverted mind. He has to take accountability for his own words.

Then you have a comprehension problem. When you hear Obama cheerfully claim "I", or "we" killed Osama Bin Laden, do you picture him in camo, toting a gun and charging the house?

No, but Obama takes responsibility for having OBL killed. It is conservatives who want to claim that Obama wasn't the one who killed OBL, but actually Bush, so maybe that is what you are picturing, Bush in camo toting an AR15 and charging the house.......

And, OBL was killed in an act of war, that is totally different than some idiot walking into a home and doing what your hero Duck said he did.

So, it's okay for Obama to use verbal imagery that we all understand he doesn't mean literally, but it's not for Phil Robertson?

Its not okay to use verbal imagery that depicts two children being raped and killed, a woman being raped in front of her husband and decapitated. If you think that mentioning bringing a gun is on the same level as what Phil said, you're either a very crass person or just pretending to be obtuse.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You have a seriously twisted mind if you think that proves he approves of doing it. He's relating a scenario, an illustration. Good grief, you're desperate to gin up hate toward the guy and what he stands for.

I am taking him literally based upon what he said. This came out of his sick and perverted mind. He has to take accountability for his own words.

Then you have a comprehension problem. When you hear Obama cheerfully claim "I", or "we" killed Osama Bin Laden, do you picture him in camo, toting a gun and charging the house?

No, but Obama takes responsibility for having OBL killed. It is conservatives who want to claim that Obama wasn't the one who killed OBL, but actually Bush, so maybe that is what you are picturing, Bush in camo toting an AR15 and charging the house.......

And, OBL was killed in an act of war, that is totally different than some idiot walking into a home and doing what your hero Duck said he did.

So, it's okay for Obama to use verbal imagery that we all understand he doesn't mean literally, but it's not for Phil Robertson?

Its not okay to use verbal imagery that depicts two children being raped and killed, a woman being raped in front of her husband and decapitated. If you think that mentioning bringing a gun is on the same level as what Phil said, you're either a very crass person or just pretending to be obtuse.

It is more than disgusting and shows a complete disregard for human life and the diginity of being a human being.