Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[Pogo]

The KKK was the southern insurgency after the Civil war, targeting the occupation government. After the Feds withdrew in 1877 the original KKK fell apart.

And then reformed - by the democratic party.

?


No?

Figures.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment?

Read carefully: A&E is not public domain. Neither is GQ magazine. They control the content of their programming and publications because it's a free country and the federal gov't can not interfere. It was A&E's call. Sort of like it was MSNBC's call to dismiss Martin Bashir. Get it now?

 

[Redfish]

Oh please. Once again for the thick of skull -- the KKK was founded by half a dozen Confederate soldiers (former solders by then) around a campfire. It has never been a political organization. It describes itself as a social organization. Any time it even remotely got into politics, such as getting its members elected, they did so as Democrats in the South and as Republicans in the North and West. As far as political thrust the only candidate they ever actually pushed into a major office was Edward Jackson, governor of Indiana. A Republican. The only minor office they campaigned for and got was some city council seats in Anaheim. Again, as Republicans.

So you're saying the Democratic Party works to get Republicans elected.

Dumbass.

Yeah, that's what Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd said, stupid ****...

Hey, if you lie enough, you can change reality!

The KKK was the terrorist wing of the democratic party - pure fact.

Pure idiocy you mean.

That's why the DP worked to get Republicans elected in Indiana and California right? Historical revision is the crutch of liars who can't be bothered to research.

I happen to have extensive research on this, so I have an unfair advantage. The KKK was undeniably a terrorist organization but was never a political one. It opposed civil rights, Catholics, Jews and loose women. They stood for a preservation of an older time -- a conservatism of cultural values -- not a political agenda.

But hey, feel free to put some meat on the bones of that canard.

As the old saying goes, those who ignore their own history are doomed to embarrass themselves with really stupid posts on message boards under names like Uncensored and Welfare Queen.

the fact remains-------most KKK members were democrats. Rant all you want, you cannot change that fact.

 

[peach174]

The KKK has never been a part of any political party, Pothead. Read a book someday.

Here's a good spot:

Have you forgotten about Sen. Byrd?

Byrd didn't get elected by the KKK. He actually hid it. It was brought out by an election opponent. From his own party IIRC.

I never said that he did.
Byrd as well as other KKK members were part of the Democratic Political Party.

 

[BlindBoo]

The KKK was the southern insurgency after the Civil war, targeting the occupation government. After the Feds withdrew in 1877 the original KKK fell apart.

And then reformed - by the democratic party.

Yeah and the added few new groups to hate as well. Jew, Catholics, and they became much more powerful than the original one too.

 

[Redfish]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment?

Read carefully: A&E is not public domain. Neither is GQ magazine. They control the content of their programming and publications because it's a free country and the federal gov't can not interfere. It was A&E's call. Sort of like it was MSNBC's call to dismiss Martin Bashir. Get it now?

NO one has said that A&E did not have the right to let him go, and/or cancel the show. Just like the rest of the family can tell A&E to stick it and stop doing shows for them.

The reall issue here is hypocrisy. Say one negative thing about gays, muslims, blacks, or any other minority and you are to be destroyed by the media. Say one negative thing about Christians, whites, or southerners and you are a hero of the left.

Political correctness is nothing but group think or mind control. Punish anyone who dares disagree with the masters who decide what is right and wrong.

You lefties support this crap and you don't realize that it is destroying your freedoms as well as ours.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Have you forgotten about Sen. Byrd?

He has forgotten about integrity.

Such is the way of leftists.

Byrd found redemption by denouncing the illegal and unethical invasion of Iraq.
It's a stellar speech: "This is not a war of necessity, but a war of choice"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWfawiufK0]Senator Byrd's Speech Opposing Iraq War 3/19/03 Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, that's what Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd said, stupid ****...

Hey, if you lie enough, you can change reality!

The KKK was the terrorist wing of the democratic party - pure fact.

Pure idiocy you mean.

That's why the DP worked to get Republicans elected in Indiana and California right? Historical revision is the crutch of liars who can't be bothered to research.

I happen to have extensive research on this, so I have an unfair advantage. The KKK was undeniably a terrorist organization but was never a political one. It opposed civil rights, Catholics, Jews and loose women. They stood for a preservation of an older time -- a conservatism of cultural values -- not a political agenda.

But hey, feel free to put some meat on the bones of that canard.

As the old saying goes, those who ignore their own history are doomed to embarrass themselves with really stupid posts on message boards under names like Uncensored and Welfare Queen.

the fact remains-------most KKK members were democrats. Rant all you want, you cannot change that fact.

I just got done saying -- the entire power structure of the white South were Democrats in that time. Therefore simple math tells us anybody who joined the KKK, if they had a political party it was going to be the DP. Just as present-day ones like David Duke (former Grand Wizard and Congresscritter from your own state) are Republicans.

Does that make Republicans racists?

OK then.

This idea you paid posters are trying to foment that racism (a character trait) is somehow a political party plank is dishonest bullshit.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment?

Read carefully: A&E is not public domain. Neither is GQ magazine. They control the content of their programming and publications because it's a free country and the federal gov't can not interfere. It was A&E's call. Sort of like it was MSNBC's call to dismiss Martin Bashir. Get it now?

NO one has said that A&E did not have the right to let him go, and/or cancel the show. Just like the rest of the family can tell A&E to stick it and stop doing shows for them.

The reall issue here is hypocrisy. Say one negative thing about gays, muslims, blacks, or any other minority and you are to be destroyed by the media. Say one negative thing about Christians, whites, or southerners and you are a hero of the left.

Political correctness is nothing but group think or mind control. Punish anyone who dares disagree with the masters who decide what is right and wrong.

You lefties support this crap and you don't realize that it is destroying your freedoms as well as ours.

I addressed the question of the OP with facts. You are bloviating with opinion.

 

[Redfish]

Have you forgotten about Sen. Byrd?

He has forgotten about integrity.

Such is the way of leftists.

Byrd found redemption by denouncing the illegal and unethical invasion of Iraq.
It's a stellar speech: "This is not a war of necessity, but a war of choice"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWfawiufK0]Senator Byrd's Speech Opposing Iraq War 3/19/03 Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

He was right about that, but explain how that excuses his previous racism and KKK membership.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment?

Read carefully: A&E is not public domain. Neither is GQ magazine. They control the content of their programming and publications because it's a free country and the federal gov't can not interfere. It was A&E's call. Sort of like it was MSNBC's call to dismiss Martin Bashir. Get it now?

So if it were "a free country" (hypothetically) why can A&E maintain it's rights to free speech while contracting others to give up theirs (hypothetically)?

Bashir resigned. It took three weeks from the time he made the comment to the time he stepped down.

 

[peach174]

Is Phil Robertson still able to say that God hates fags?

Why, yes! Yes he is!

Freedom of religious opinion.

God does not hate gays or any other sinner.
God wants those that commit sin to stop and turn away from their sins.
That is love not hatred.

 

[Pogo]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment?

Read carefully: A&E is not public domain. Neither is GQ magazine. They control the content of their programming and publications because it's a free country and the federal gov't can not interfere. It was A&E's call. Sort of like it was MSNBC's call to dismiss Martin Bashir. Get it now?

NO one has said that A&E did not have the right to let him go, and/or cancel the show. Just like the rest of the family can tell A&E to stick it and stop doing shows for them.

Actually several people said that. Read back. It looks like they've retreated from that position without saying so. Which is, you know, all courageous and shit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Read carefully: A&E is not public domain. Neither is GQ magazine. They control the content of their programming and publications because it's a free country and the federal gov't can not interfere. It was A&E's call. Sort of like it was MSNBC's call to dismiss Martin Bashir. Get it now?

NO one has said that A&E did not have the right to let him go, and/or cancel the show. Just like the rest of the family can tell A&E to stick it and stop doing shows for them.

The reall issue here is hypocrisy. Say one negative thing about gays, muslims, blacks, or any other minority and you are to be destroyed by the media. Say one negative thing about Christians, whites, or southerners and you are a hero of the left.

Political correctness is nothing but group think or mind control. Punish anyone who dares disagree with the masters who decide what is right and wrong.

You lefties support this crap and you don't realize that it is destroying your freedoms as well as ours.

I addressed the question of the OP with facts. You are bloviating with opinion.

What facts? Other than your contention that Phil Robertson is a bigoted racist? Sure, facts. Carry on.

 

[Sallow]

Yeah, that's what Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd said, stupid ****...

Hey, if you lie enough, you can change reality!

The KKK was the terrorist wing of the democratic party - pure fact.

Pure idiocy you mean.

That's why the DP worked to get Republicans elected in Indiana and California right? Historical revision is the crutch of liars who can't be bothered to research.

I happen to have extensive research on this, so I have an unfair advantage. The KKK was undeniably a terrorist organization but was never a political one. It opposed civil rights, Catholics, Jews and loose women. They stood for a preservation of an older time -- a conservatism of cultural values -- not a political agenda.

But hey, feel free to put some meat on the bones of that canard.

As the old saying goes, those who ignore their own history are doomed to embarrass themselves with really stupid posts on message boards under names like Uncensored and Welfare Queen.

the fact remains-------most KKK members were democrats. Rant all you want, you cannot change that fact.

That's probably true.

And they were ALL conservatives.

Like the one's waving the Stars and Bars today..and defending state's rights.

 

[Pogo]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment?

Read carefully: A&E is not public domain. Neither is GQ magazine. They control the content of their programming and publications because it's a free country and the federal gov't can not interfere. It was A&E's call. Sort of like it was MSNBC's call to dismiss Martin Bashir. Get it now?

So if it were "a free country" (hypothetically) why can A&E maintain it's rights to free speech while contracting others to give up theirs (hypothetically)?

Bashir resigned. It took three weeks from the time he made the comment to the time he stepped down.

Don't kid yourself; Bashir was fired. You don't resign at the nadir of your value.

To the question in the first line, for the eighth time now: because what A&E is selling is illusion. Read the contract I posted. The TV channel OWNS the Artist's humanity. And that's a voluntary agreement. Why shouldn't a signatory to a voluntary agreement be held to it?

 

[Sallow]

NO one has said that A&E did not have the right to let him go, and/or cancel the show. Just like the rest of the family can tell A&E to stick it and stop doing shows for them.

The reall issue here is hypocrisy. Say one negative thing about gays, muslims, blacks, or any other minority and you are to be destroyed by the media. Say one negative thing about Christians, whites, or southerners and you are a hero of the left.

Political correctness is nothing but group think or mind control. Punish anyone who dares disagree with the masters who decide what is right and wrong.

You lefties support this crap and you don't realize that it is destroying your freedoms as well as ours.

I addressed the question of the OP with facts. You are bloviating with opinion.

What facts? Other than your contention that Phil Robertson is a bigoted racist? Sure, facts. Carry on.

He don't like gays and blacks.

What does that make him, exactly?

 

[Pogo]

He has forgotten about integrity.

Such is the way of leftists.

Byrd found redemption by denouncing the illegal and unethical invasion of Iraq.
It's a stellar speech: "This is not a war of necessity, but a war of choice"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWfawiufK0]Senator Byrd's Speech Opposing Iraq War 3/19/03 Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

He was right about that, but explain how that excuses his previous racism and KKK membership.

Explain how it's related.

 

[Redfish]

Pure idiocy you mean.

That's why the DP worked to get Republicans elected in Indiana and California right? Historical revision is the crutch of liars who can't be bothered to research.

I happen to have extensive research on this, so I have an unfair advantage. The KKK was undeniably a terrorist organization but was never a political one. It opposed civil rights, Catholics, Jews and loose women. They stood for a preservation of an older time -- a conservatism of cultural values -- not a political agenda.

But hey, feel free to put some meat on the bones of that canard.

As the old saying goes, those who ignore their own history are doomed to embarrass themselves with really stupid posts on message boards under names like Uncensored and Welfare Queen.

the fact remains-------most KKK members were democrats. Rant all you want, you cannot change that fact.

I just got done saying -- the entire power structure of the white South were Democrats in that time. Therefore simple math tells us anybody who joined the KKK, if they had a political party it was going to be the DP. Just as present-day ones like David Duke (former Grand Wizard and Congresscritter from your own state) are Republicans.

Does that make Republicans racists?

OK then.

This idea you paid posters are trying to foment that racism (a character trait) is somehow a political party plank is dishonest bullshit.

David Duke was and is a racist asshole, when he ran for governer we had a choice between the klansman and the criminal----------we chose the criminal Edwin Edwards. Duke was rejected by Louisiana. I think he is in some skinhead group in europe now.

Byrd is brought up because dems constantly claim to be the party of integration and inclusiveness. But they were not and are not.

Lincoln was a republican
republicans passed the civil rights act
Bush 43 had more minorities in his administration than any president before or after
The dems want minorities to be slaves of the state via dependency
republicans want minorities to be free, successful, and independent.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Pure idiocy you mean.

That's why the DP worked to get Republicans elected in Indiana and California right? Historical revision is the crutch of liars who can't be bothered to research.

I happen to have extensive research on this, so I have an unfair advantage. The KKK was undeniably a terrorist organization but was never a political one. It opposed civil rights, Catholics, Jews and loose women. They stood for a preservation of an older time -- a conservatism of cultural values -- not a political agenda.

But hey, feel free to put some meat on the bones of that canard.

As the old saying goes, those who ignore their own history are doomed to embarrass themselves with really stupid posts on message boards under names like Uncensored and Welfare Queen.

the fact remains-------most KKK members were democrats. Rant all you want, you cannot change that fact.

I just got done saying -- the entire power structure of the white South were Democrats in that time. Therefore simple math tells us anybody who joined the KKK, if they had a political party it was going to be the DP. Just as present-day ones like David Duke (former Grand Wizard and Congresscritter from your own state) are Republicans.

For the record. Duke was a long time democrat when he was with the Klan. Right after he left the Klan he ran for U.S. President in the primaries as a democrat before later switching to Republican in the late 80s to run against U.S. Senator Bennett Johnson of Louisiana.