In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[BDBoop]

Well you heard wrong. I'm not going to repost all those links from way back when. You can do your own research if you think all they did was ask A&E to disavoiw the statements. This had nothing to do with A&E in the first place.

Phil Robertson was never fired???????? Do you watch no television? Do you read nothing? No newspapers? No magazines? No internet news? How can you say that he was never fired? It is true that A&E used the word "suspended", without pay. They unsuspended him only after the rest of the Robertson family refused to go on without him and also in the wake of millions of viewers expressing their views.

And now Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition have gotten involved and are demanding that Jackson and GLAAD meet with Cracker Barrel and A&E. Presumably they aren't going to take it lying down that both Cracker Barrel and A&E bowed to public opinion and reinstated Phil Robertson.
Jesse Jackson, GLAAD demand meeting with A&E, Cracker Barrel over Phil Robertson - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

They suspended him. They put him on hiatus. They didn't fire him.

Don't ask how I can say it. Those are words, words have meaning, and neither of those words mean "fired."

More than one source I have linked has said they put him on permanent hiatus. You of course are free to interpret tat any way you wish. I interpret that as fired. But whether temporary or permanent it deprived him of his position--PHYSICALLY removed him from a show he enjoyed doing--are you paying attention to that Stat as I have now said it maybe 30 times on this thread?--and cost him at least a portion of his livelihood. And they weren't content to stop there but they were researching those firms that he does promotional spots for and were or at least were planning to go after them to get them to dump Phil too. They weren't content with expressing their displeasure at something he said. They were out to destroy him. And that, in my opinion, is wrong. It is the worst form of intolerance and it is hateful.

It should be acceptable to no freedom loving person anwhere.

There is no such thing as permanent hiatus.

Kindly link to said posts.

 

[BDBoop]

"Physically removed him."

That's what happens when security tries to remove you, and you fight back. That is being physically removed. Otherwise, you are just being escorted. Further, I don't believe either happened. He was likely just told he was grounded, and don't bother coming back to the set at this point in time.

 

[Plasmaball]

We have the right in this country to vote, literally and figuratively. We can vote at the ballot box, with our wallets, with emails, with calls, with letters, we can vote by supporting interest groups that advocate for causes we support.

We can vote with the remote, with the dial on the radio. We can vote by making 'demands'. We can vote by making 'threats', provided they are within the law.

Start taking away people's right to vote, and where does it go? Where could it go?

Maybe some of you noticed the story I posted about the Israeli parliament trying to make boycotts, or even calling for boycotts,

illegal. That's where it can go.

Yes, you have the right to threaten people. It's a right, and you choose to run with it.

You can also pretend that it's your only option, even though we all know it isn't.

Now that the pushback to this behavior has begun in earnest, I'm very pleased to say:

Keep it up!

.

Again I can threaten to have you banned but that doesn't mean the mods will listen to me.
The push back isn't happening..If that was true the story on Romney and MSNBC wouldn't have the woman apologizing.

 

[Plasmaball]

They suspended him. They put him on hiatus. They didn't fire him.

Don't ask how I can say it. Those are words, words have meaning, and neither of those words mean "fired."

More than one source I have linked has said they put him on permanent hiatus. You of course are free to interpret tat any way you wish. I interpret that as fired. But whether temporary or permanent it deprived him of his position--PHYSICALLY removed him from a show he enjoyed doing--are you paying attention to that Stat as I have now said it maybe 30 times on this thread?--and cost him at least a portion of his livelihood. And they weren't content to stop there but they were researching those firms that he does promotional spots for and were or at least were planning to go after them to get them to dump Phil too. They weren't content with expressing their displeasure at something he said. They were out to destroy him. And that, in my opinion, is wrong. It is the worst form of intolerance and it is hateful.

It should be acceptable to no freedom loving person anwhere.

There is no such thing as permanent hiatus.

Kindly link to said posts.

She wont..she will say go find them within the thread. I have a feeling they are blogs or opinion pieces and use the term. Which isn't a valid source.

Oh and #5 #98 #43

 

[BDBoop]

More than one source I have linked has said they put him on permanent hiatus. You of course are free to interpret tat any way you wish. I interpret that as fired. But whether temporary or permanent it deprived him of his position--PHYSICALLY removed him from a show he enjoyed doing--are you paying attention to that Stat as I have now said it maybe 30 times on this thread?--and cost him at least a portion of his livelihood. And they weren't content to stop there but they were researching those firms that he does promotional spots for and were or at least were planning to go after them to get them to dump Phil too. They weren't content with expressing their displeasure at something he said. They were out to destroy him. And that, in my opinion, is wrong. It is the worst form of intolerance and it is hateful.

It should be acceptable to no freedom loving person anwhere.

There is no such thing as permanent hiatus.

Kindly link to said posts.

She wont..she will say go find them within the thread. I have a feeling they are blogs or opinion pieces and use the term. Which isn't a valid source.

Oh and #5 #98 #43

Just for you. #40 #24 #34

Happy New Year!!!

 

[Plasmaball]

There is no such thing as permanent hiatus.

Kindly link to said posts.

She wont..she will say go find them within the thread. I have a feeling they are blogs or opinion pieces and use the term. Which isn't a valid source.

Oh and #5 #98 #43

Just for you. #40 #24 #34

Happy New Year!!!

Oh I'm so taking that as meaning something

#7

 

[GreenBean]

They suspended him. They put him on hiatus. They didn't fire him.

Don't ask how I can say it. Those are words, words have meaning, and neither of those words mean "fired."

More than one source I have linked has said they put him on permanent hiatus. You of course are free to interpret tat any way you wish. I interpret that as fired. But whether temporary or permanent it deprived him of his position--PHYSICALLY removed him from a show he enjoyed doing--are you paying attention to that Stat as I have now said it maybe 30 times on this thread?--and cost him at least a portion of his livelihood. And they weren't content to stop there but they were researching those firms that he does promotional spots for and were or at least were planning to go after them to get them to dump Phil too. They weren't content with expressing their displeasure at something he said. They were out to destroy him. And that, in my opinion, is wrong. It is the worst form of intolerance and it is hateful.

It should be acceptable to no freedom loving person anwhere.

There is no such thing as permanent hiatus.

Kindly link to said posts.

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Burning, unanswered questions from the GLAAD/Duck Dynasty controversy | Washington Times Communities

Open Season: What will Robertson's comments mean for future of Duck Dynasty? | SouthCoastToday.com

There's no such thing as Permanent Hiatus ? Someone should tell that to A&E - although it's a moot point now that they erased his "permanent hiatus" ....

 

[Montrovant]

I certainly have not been singing their praises on this thread and in the J C Penney/Ellen Degeneres matter, I rated them every bit as hateful and wrong as GLAAD.

As for those other matters, I have not researched them and don't know WHY the boycotts were organized or carried out. If they were for tnothing more than the beliefs or opinions of people, an organized boycott is not something I will ever defend. If they were for bad ACTS, then they might be justifiable. So you'll need to be more specific if you wish for me to comment on something more than the JC Penney/Degeneres bruhaha.

Let's remember that there's nothing wrong with a boycott per se. It's the actions beyond that boycott where intolerance raises its ugly head.

Yep. There's nothing wrong with voting with one's pocketbook. I do that all the time and I'm not about to fault anybody else for that. There is a LOT wrong with intention and purposefully trying to harm somebody physically and/or materially for no offense other than being who and what they are. I just wonder how many share my opinion about that and how many of those will be right of center versus left of center? I mean if we were taking a legitimate poll, how would it shake out?

That might give us a clue as to how close to totalitarianism we are in this country.

What if the intention is not to hurt, what if that is an unavoidable side effect?

If the intention is to remove someone from the public eye, and they are employed as an entertainer, you cannot accomplish the one without the other. The intent may not be harm; the person may be perfectly happy with someone have any job that doesn't put them out there as a public figure or celebrity.

There is a fine line there, but is it a distinction you consider important?

 

[hunarcy]

I hope everyone has a happy and safe new year!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Have a Happy, safe and TOLERANT New Year, my friends!

 

[Bfgrn]

National Organization for Marriage (NOM), from it's own Blog, September, 2013:

Voting With Our Wallets | NOM Blog

Did you know that Starbucks was recently reported to be perceived as the most LGBT-friendly brand in the U.S.? JCPenney, Target, Apple and Amazon round out the top five.

If you've been following the national marriage battle over the past 18 months this should come as no surprise. Starbucks has said that gay ‘marriage’ is one of its corporate values. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who recently purchased the Washington Post, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to redefine marriage in Washington State. Target and JC Penny both support gay ‘marriage’ and the homosexual lifestyle in general, as does Apple.

In the same survey, it was reported that 75% of LGBT respondents said they were actively boycotting Chick-fil-A.

We only vote at a ballot box once a year at most. But we vote with our wallets every day. That’s why NOM maintains its Corporate Fairness Project - which includes the Dump Starbucks, Dump General Mills, and Thank Chick-fil-A initiatives – to inform you of what companies are taking active stands in the marriage battle, and where your money is best spent in defense of this sacred institution.

Yepp, a call to boycott any company that is in any way gay-friendly.

Lots of physical harm, I would say. Right, FoxFyre?

What physical harm? I have no problem with the LGBT people not patronizing Chick-fil-a. If enough people don't patronize Chick-fil-a, it will close its doors. I would have had no problem with GLAAD encouraging its members not to watch Duck Dynasty--not that many if any do--or A&E. Though in both cases, I would have seen that as small and petty, that is a very different thing than threatening an organization with lawsuits, going after and threatening its advertisers or customers. and demanding that people be fired for nothing more than you don't like who and what they are.

After your own intolerant comments here today, I honestly don't believe you will hear or understand that. But I know some will. Which is why I took the time to respond to you.

A group of people who have been the victims of REAL harm, physical violence and and mental abuse have every right to lobby for people like Phil Roberson to lose his public forum. He is creating an atmosphere that feeds that violence and abuse. It is NOT just a mere 'opinion' Phil is spewing.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I certainly have not been singing their praises on this thread and in the J C Penney/Ellen Degeneres matter, I rated them every bit as hateful and wrong as GLAAD.

As for those other matters, I have not researched them and don't know WHY the boycotts were organized or carried out. If they were for tnothing more than the beliefs or opinions of people, an organized boycott is not something I will ever defend. If they were for bad ACTS, then they might be justifiable. So you'll need to be more specific if you wish for me to comment on something more than the JC Penney/Degeneres bruhaha.

Let's remember that there's nothing wrong with a boycott per se. It's the actions beyond that boycott where intolerance raises its ugly head.

Indeed. Right-Radical "Christians" have been doing that for years...

 

[Iceman]

I certainly have not been singing their praises on this thread and in the J C Penney/Ellen Degeneres matter, I rated them every bit as hateful and wrong as GLAAD.

As for those other matters, I have not researched them and don't know WHY the boycotts were organized or carried out. If they were for tnothing more than the beliefs or opinions of people, an organized boycott is not something I will ever defend. If they were for bad ACTS, then they might be justifiable. So you'll need to be more specific if you wish for me to comment on something more than the JC Penney/Degeneres bruhaha.

Let's remember that there's nothing wrong with a boycott per se. It's the actions beyond that boycott where intolerance raises its ugly head.

Indeed. Right-Radical "Christians" have been doing that for years...

Oi vey! ze radical right wing christians are running America! Ze evil goy!

 

[Statistikhengst]

I certainly have not been singing their praises on this thread and in the J C Penney/Ellen Degeneres matter, I rated them every bit as hateful and wrong as GLAAD.

As for those other matters, I have not researched them and don't know WHY the boycotts were organized or carried out. If they were for tnothing more than the beliefs or opinions of people, an organized boycott is not something I will ever defend. If they were for bad ACTS, then they might be justifiable. So you'll need to be more specific if you wish for me to comment on something more than the JC Penney/Degeneres bruhaha.

Let's remember that there's nothing wrong with a boycott per se. It's the actions beyond that boycott where intolerance raises its ugly head.

Yep. There's nothing wrong with voting with one's pocketbook. I do that all the time and I'm not about to fault anybody else for that. There is a LOT wrong with intention and purposefully trying to harm somebody physically and/or materially for no offense other than being who and what they are. I just wonder how many share my opinion about that and how many of those will be right of center versus left of center? I mean if we were taking a legitimate poll, how would it shake out?

That might give us a clue as to how close to totalitarianism we are in this country.

The bolded: that is absolutely true. But apparently, if Libs do it, you call it intolerance. Hypocrisy alert!!!

And now, for the NINTH time, I challenge you to show me where Mr. Ducky Duck has suffered physical harm.

What part of his body has been injured in any of this? Please, do tell.

You claimed you answered this, but you did not. You danced around it and then gave the weak-kneed excuse that the possible loss of a job (which for a super-rich man means nothing but looking for a new one when he feels like getting around to it) causes physical harm. Srsly? Wow.

You then went on to equate GLAAD with NAZI techniques of the past. You went full Godwin. Have you no shame at all? And you want to talk about people going overboard? You went WAY overboard, but of course, being a Conservative, you will never excuse yourself for it. In typical Conservative form, you will double down ad nauseum. Of this I am really quite sure. The hypocrisy of this stinks to high heaven.

FoxFyre, there is a huge difference between a war of words and enslaving people, working them and then and gassing them to death and then cremating their bodies. If you do not understand that these two things do not ever, ever go together, then I truly feel sorry for you. But it is your 1st amendment right to say things this vile and inappropriate. So, have at it.

And if you think we are close to totalitarianism in the USA, I will remind you that you were able to write all this nonsense and I bet that no secret police showed up at your door afterward, which means that the 1st amendment still applies and we are still as free as ever. And tomorrow, should you decide to write such nonsense again, I am also sure that no secret police or black helicopters will come then, either.

Honestly, I thought I had finally met a Conservative interested in real debate with real respect for the other side and a desire to learn. And I see I was wrong about that thought.

-Stat

 

[Statistikhengst]

Let's remember that there's nothing wrong with a boycott per se. It's the actions beyond that boycott where intolerance raises its ugly head.

Yep. There's nothing wrong with voting with one's pocketbook. I do that all the time and I'm not about to fault anybody else for that. There is a LOT wrong with intention and purposefully trying to harm somebody physically and/or materially for no offense other than being who and what they are. I just wonder how many share my opinion about that and how many of those will be right of center versus left of center? I mean if we were taking a legitimate poll, how would it shake out?

That might give us a clue as to how close to totalitarianism we are in this country.

It certainly might. I hope we're further away that some believe and that our grand children and great grand children enjoy the blessings I've had throughout my life.

Well, if we can keep the Right-Wing American Taliban from ruining everyones' lives with it's puritanism, we might just have a chance at that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Let's remember that there's nothing wrong with a boycott per se. It's the actions beyond that boycott where intolerance raises its ugly head.

Yep. There's nothing wrong with voting with one's pocketbook. I do that all the time and I'm not about to fault anybody else for that. There is a LOT wrong with intention and purposefully trying to harm somebody physically and/or materially for no offense other than being who and what they are. I just wonder how many share my opinion about that and how many of those will be right of center versus left of center? I mean if we were taking a legitimate poll, how would it shake out?

That might give us a clue as to how close to totalitarianism we are in this country.

Oh....we are close. Very close. You nailed it.

(snicker, snicker)

 

[Statistikhengst]

oh, so you support the people who demanded a&e keep robertson but glaad's demands ought to be illegal?

Jeezus you are the phoniest person on this board.

#1, #2, #4, #5

Now it just looks like you are melting.

Go on and throw a number at me.

Well, there I did it. I bombarded her with facts and then she went all Godwin. The fact that a Nazi showed up on the thread right about now to support her cause should really be enough to make her throw up, I would hope.

Or did I hope wrong?

 

[BDBoop]

#1, #2, #4, #5

Now it just looks like you are melting.

Go on and throw a number at me.

Well, there I did it. I bombarded her with facts and then she went all Godwin. The fact that a Nazi showed up on the thread right about now to support her cause should really be enough to make her throw up, I would hope.

Or did I hope wrong?

You hoped wrong.

Well - I'm in your shoes. I had to see with my own eyes what people were bitching about when it comes to debating with FF. And yes. I am disappointed.

 

[BDBoop]

"The above post was brought to you by the numbers 43-68, and the letter F."

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's remember that there's nothing wrong with a boycott per se. It's the actions beyond that boycott where intolerance raises its ugly head.

Indeed. Right-Radical "Christians" have been doing that for years...

Oi vey! ze radical right wing christians are running America! Ze evil goy!

They sure as hell are trying.