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

[Sunshine]

An A&E rep was there with Phil when he was asked the volatile question. A&E knew what the answer would be. And why was a rep there to begin with?

Something stinks. And the smell is coming from A&E's direction.

No he wasn't. The A&E rep was stupid enough to let Phil and GQ reporter dude go four-wheeling without him.

Yes, what a shame. And adult American male was allowed to go on an outing without a chaperone. The nerve!

 

[Dot Com]

Sunny w/ her sock delusions & paranoia AGAIN? No one cares about you that much. NO ONE!!!

As to the OP, he just talked "off the cuff", just like McChrystal did to Rolling Stone

 

[Gracie]

An A&E rep was there with Phil when he was asked the volatile question. A&E knew what the answer would be. And why was a rep there to begin with?

Something stinks. And the smell is coming from A&E's direction.

No he wasn't. The A&E rep was stupid enough to let Phil and GQ reporter dude go four-wheeling without him.

But the rep and A&E both KNEW what the response would be if the reporter asked particular questions. Personally...I think A&E were butt hurt because Phil refused to stop using Jesus name in prayers at the end of the show....they lost control of him...so they planned to set him up. How? Get GQ to do an interview, told that reporter what to ask, conveniently had the two go 4 wheeling, and in general....the GQ rep was either in on the whole thing or was used as a patsy. Then GQ sent the script to GLAAD, KNOWING what would happen...A&E then trying to assert control again...and it all backfiring while GQ stays real quiet to let the heat settle on GLAAD and A&E.

Hows that for conspiracy theories? A&E has been affiliated with DD for years. THEY KNEW. GLAAD didn't have a problem with DD during that time. GQ didn't have a problem. Who had the problem? A&E. "Do not say JESUS. It might offend muslims". Phil said "up yours. We are saying what we always say as a family", so A&E starts bleeping the episodes to make it look like they are cussing in the edits being done throughout the episodes being filmed. Nope, they are not cussin. They are mentioning Jesus.
Phil states he loves everyone. He says whatever he said about the blacks and him being white trash. If everyone would look a bit deeper...like detectives...all things will come to light...or stuff to make you go "huh? This doesn't add up". Phil was saying he never experienced atrocities against blacks because he was on level with them concerning societies views of him being WHITE TRASH. He called HIMSELF white trash. So how could he see atrocities when he was ostracized the same way blacks were?

Dig people. Dig a bit deeper. You might find some clues to where all this stink originates from. And in my opinion....it is permeating the air straight from A&E.
The patsies used? GQ and GLAAD. Who pays in the fallout? Gays. Certainly not Phil. He doesn't need A&E. But he sure makes them a helluvalot of dough. So...I think GLAAD should delve a bit deeper as well. They may have been going after the wrong guy.

 

[WillReadmore]

You don't understand something. If we are to live and let live, we don't tell other what opinions and stances they should have. Therefore the states aren't required to do anything.

It isn't an offer of equality, but an offer of understanding.

I'm not talking about opinions and stances.

You can't call it "live and let live" when one side has laws against the other side preventing "live and let live".

Until the state offers a level playing field, you're offering "I'll live and you suck it up."

 

[NYcarbineer]

And just once I wish NYcarboneer and/or CandyCorn was smart enough or tolerant enough to be honest about what I have said. Now pay attention here folks. I'm going to use them to teach a principle.

I can easily call either or both dishonest when he misrepresents what I say. It is doing a BAD ACT when he deliberately attributes something to me that is not accurate. And if it got to be a problem for me, or if he was continually derailing the thread, I would be fully justified in doing whatever I could to have him removed from the thread or the forum or otherwise 'punished' for his bad acts. There is no reason I should ever have to tolerate being deliberately misquoted or misrepresented as to what I have said or done or be subjected to having my rights violated due to somebody's immaturity or just plain meanness.

BUT. . .he is fully within his right to tell me that my opinion sucks, that I have it all wrong, that I am stupid, ignorant, partisan or whatever. That is his opinion. He has been invited to express his opinion on this thread and that would be expressing his opinion. I might think he is a total jerk and/or partisan hack and think he is wrong in everything he says, but I am tolerant if I allow him to be who and what he is without neg repping or trying to persuade somebody in authority to remove him.

Do you have all the conservatives in this thread on ignore?

I have asked you several times about my own family, and why you would expect me to tolerate intolerance.

On another note, you specifically said that there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. When I pointed out One Million Moms, you did not acknowledge that yes, 'they do it too,' which would be the logical debate thing to do when your statement has been disproven.

Candycorn and NYCarbineer have behaved no more badly than anybody on the right in this thread - so why are they being held up as negatives.

Being on the receiving end of a personal attack by someone reeling from losing the argument is something I'm used to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Excuse me, but haven't you been "saying so" all day?

"You pretend that words alone are harmless. Hitler was little more than a big talker before he eventually came to power and could 'act out' his words."

When you referred to Hitler as a "big talker" you meant Fox also. You accused her of being a big talker and of being a fraud. Hitler was inherently evil and megalomaniacal

You've crossed two lines today:

One, you've attacked a good woman today, who has not responded in kind to your childishness.

Two, you've compared her to a mass murderer, you've dubbed her "evil" and have been in no uncertain terms unapologetic and unremorseful. You don't like others calling you a liar, but you don't mind calling others liars. You don't like to have your image tarnished by anyone, yet you take to slandering others.

"Humility for thee, but not for me" in other words.

No, I was referring to FF's repeated assure that objecting to someone just talking is evil. Her point being that we have no business bothering someone who's just talking.

Hitler was just talking.

"The pen is mightier than the sword." Ever heard that?

Except that is NOT TRUE.
Hitler was not talking at all.
he was doing instead.
Silently.
There was no publicity to what he was doing at all.

Oh, I see, so now we have to overturn history's common knowledge that Adolph Hitler had incredible oratorical skills,

in order to make history fit Foxfyre's fallacious premise.

 

[Gracie]

Sorry, FF. I got sidetracked again and off topic.

I'll mosey on. The question is too confusing and there are no right answers to it.

 

[WillReadmore]

The issue is that GLAAD wants its members and those it is advocates for to be tolerated for who and what they are. They do not want to be punished physically or materially for stating who and what they are, what they believe, what they want, what they care about. But in this instance, they are not willing to extend the same tolerance to a Phil Robertson and allow him to be who and what he is, state what he believes, what he wants, what he cares about.

GLAAD is right on this.

If the statements had been made against a racial group, the same would apply - once again, there is no reason to leave such statements unopposed.

I don't remember any opposition to Robertson when he remained as a private citizen. He was certainly being tolerated. But, once he used his fame to make a public statement, he should have been more than aware that he would be opposed.

He was asked.

That's irrelevant.

He used his position in the public eye to make the statements he made.

His alternative was to NOT do that.

 

[Vox]

No, I was referring to FF's repeated assure that objecting to someone just talking is evil. Her point being that we have no business bothering someone who's just talking.

Hitler was just talking.

"The pen is mightier than the sword." Ever heard that?

Except that is NOT TRUE.
Hitler was not talking at all.
he was doing instead.
Silently.
There was no publicity to what he was doing at all.

Oh, I see, so now we have to overturn history's common knowledge that Adolph Hitler had incredible oratorical skills,

in order to make history fit Foxfyre's fallacious premise.

and what has his oratorical skills to do with him not talking about exterminating Jews and other groups, but just doing it?

Or are you dumb enough to think he was talking about that BEFORE he got to power? well, knowing your absolute ignorance and you belonging to the ignorant left, you, probably think, that he did
in a country which was full of very wealthy and powerful Jewish people some unknown screamer will talk about getting rid of the very ones with the financial and political means in order to get elected

 

[Vox]

GLAAD is right on this.

If the statements had been made against a racial group, the same would apply - once again, there is no reason to leave such statements unopposed.

I don't remember any opposition to Robertson when he remained as a private citizen. He was certainly being tolerated. But, once he used his fame to make a public statement, he should have been more than aware that he would be opposed.

He was asked.

That's irrelevant.

He used his position in the public eye to make the statements he made.

His alternative was to NOT do that.

Oh, I see. leftist hypocrites are actually OK with your views of not ACCEPTING gay lifestyle, as long as you LIE about it and keep the REAL views to yourself, but tell something else on a public

why am I not surprised

 

[WillReadmore]

He was asked.

That's irrelevant.

He used his position in the public eye to make the statements he made.

His alternative was to NOT do that.

Oh, I see. leftist hypocrites are actually OK with your views of not ACCEPTING gay lifestyle, as long as you LIE about it and keep the REAL views to yourself, but tell something else on a public

why am I not surprised

You're post is a little too confused for words here. Let me know if you have a question.

Robertson said what he said voluntarily.

And, there are ramifications for that.

 

[hunarcy]

So an interest group that tries to drive an elected official out of public life is acting unreasonably.

Ok, tell that to the NRA. OR, for our entertainment, give us a wacky explanation as to why that's not what you meant.

Did the interest group work to get the person out of office or out of public life completely? For, if it is the latter, it was wrong.

 

[Vox]

That's irrelevant.

He used his position in the public eye to make the statements he made.

His alternative was to NOT do that.

Oh, I see. leftist hypocrites are actually OK with your views of not ACCEPTING gay lifestyle, as long as you LIE about it and keep the REAL views to yourself, but tell something else on a public

why am I not surprised

You're post is a little too confused for words here. Let me know if you have a question.

Robertson said what he said voluntarily.

And, there are ramifications for that.

don't hide, now that you professed hypocrisy is exposed.

you are fine with people objecting to anything as long as they do not say that publicly - and it was known all along that leftards LIE, so no big surprise here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You don't understand something. If we are to live and let live, we don't tell others what opinions and stances they should have. Therefore the states aren't required to do anything.

It isn't an offer of equality, but an offer of understanding.

I'm not talking about opinions and stances.

You can't call it "live and let live" when one side has laws against the other side preventing "live and let live".

Until the state offers a level playing field, you're offering "I'll live and you suck it up."

That's all it is with you is a "level playing field." You simply can't let one state have their opinion while the other has another. You gotta force that level playing field on the rest of us. Suck it up? You wish. You want a level playing field? Have one where all views are tolerated, where states can act within the bounds of the law to pass appropriate legislation. Where nobody is singled out for who or what they are.

You can't call it a "level playing field" when you force it on the populous. You want tolerance and equality? You can start by not forcing your opinion down our throats.

 

[WillReadmore]

You don't understand something. If we are to live and let live, we don't tell others what opinions and stances they should have. Therefore the states aren't required to do anything.

It isn't an offer of equality, but an offer of understanding.

I'm not talking about opinions and stances.

You can't call it "live and let live" when one side has laws against the other side preventing "live and let live".

Until the state offers a level playing field, you're offering "I'll live and you suck it up."

That's all it is with you is a "level playing field." You simply can't let one state have their opinion while the other has another. You gotta force that level playing field on the rest of us. Suck it up? You wish. You want a level playing field? Have one where all views are tolerated, where states can act within the bounds of the law to pass appropriate legislation. Where nobody is singled out for who or what they are.

You can't call it a "level playing field" when you force it on the populous. You want tolerance and equality? You can start by not forcing your opinion down our throats.

Exactly. Any state that has laws against their same sex population does not have any right to say "live and let live".

Period.

What could that phrase POSSIBLY refer to when the state is enforcing a discriminatory policy?

Allowing discrimination to continue is not how we get to equality. That's crazy talk. All across the world we have gotten to equality by fighting for equality - hopefully without actual violence.

 

[hunarcy]

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

I would have hoped that, after your poor performance yesterday, you'd come in a bit more prepared today. But, you aren't.

Those aren't Phil Robertson's own words. He was reading a passage from the Bible, specifically Romans 1:26-32. Anything else?

Hardly.

Romans I:26 - 32 says this:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Robertson was not reading from a Bible, no other version btw either.

If you acknowledge you were wrong and apologize to me for your assholedness, I'll tell you why it matter.

You are correct, I was mistaken, he was paraphrasing Romans I:26 - 32. As I acknowledge in a following post, I didn't know for sure what he was doing and neither did you. It turns out that it was a speech given at a "Wild Game Supper" at Berean Bible Church in Pennsylvania in Feb. 2010. He sprinkled in religious content, hunting stories and the story of his life into the speech.

As far as apologizing to you, I have nothing to apologize for as you have spent two days behaving as if you're the MR wing of the far Left.

 

[hunarcy]

You can't take away the public's right to not watch a show, or not patronize an advertiser. You can't take away the right of an advertiser to threaten to pull its sponsorship. You can't take away the right of a shareholder to dump his stock in a company, if that applies.

You have been told REPEATEDLY that NO one is trying to do those things. You are being intentionally obtuse as a way to disrupt the conversation, which makes you a Self-Feeding Troll.

Good luck with that.

 

[hunarcy]

When Bashir made the comments he did was he revealing his true personality?

If so I doubt that MSNBC would have hired him to begin with.

As I said in an earlier post, Bashir's comments had to have been approved by someone to get them on the teleprompter. Obviously no one who read them ahead of time had a problem with them, or they would have been edited. I believe he was saying what his management wanted him to say (trying to generate controversy and ratings) and when it blew up in their faces, they used him as the scapegoat. He should not have been fired, though I have no idea why anyone would continue to watch the show after the comments were made.

 

[hunarcy]

WE are guaranteed LIFE, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness per the Constitution. WE are not guaranteed NOT to be offended.

Uhhhh, not to be pedantic, but that's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

And just once I wish NYcarboneer and/or CandyCorn was smart enough or tolerant enough to be honest about what I have said. Now pay attention here folks. I'm going to use them to teach a principle.

I can easily call either or both dishonest when he misrepresents what I say. It is doing a BAD ACT when he deliberately attributes something to me that is not accurate. And if it got to be a problem for me, or if he was continually derailing the thread, I would be fully justified in doing whatever I could to have him removed from the thread or the forum or otherwise 'punished' for his bad acts. There is no reason I should ever have to tolerate being deliberately misquoted or misrepresented as to what I have said or done or be subjected to having my rights violated due to somebody's immaturity or just plain meanness.

BUT. . .he is fully within his right to tell me that my opinion sucks, that I have it all wrong, that I am stupid, ignorant, partisan or whatever. That is his opinion. He has been invited to express his opinion on this thread and that would be expressing his opinion. I might think he is a total jerk and/or partisan hack and think he is wrong in everything he says, but I am tolerant if I allow him to be who and what he is without neg repping or trying to persuade somebody in authority to remove him.

Do you have all the conservatives in this thread on ignore?

I have asked you several times about my own family, and why you would expect me to tolerate intolerance.

On another note, you specifically said that there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. When I pointed out One Million Moms, you did not acknowledge that yes, 'they do it too,' which would be the logical debate thing to do when your statement has been disproven.

Candycorn and NYCarbineer have behaved no more badly than anybody on the right in this thread - so why are they being held up as negatives.

No BdBoop, I did not say there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. I said I did not KNOW of any conservative group doing what GLAAD did in the Phil Robertson bruhaha and I asked for any who knew of such examples to please link to them. I did not see a post about your family or about One Million Moms--I have skipped over lot of posts doing the occasional food fight outbreaks here and have tried not to respond to off topic posts. I regret and apologize if I have inadvertently slighted a pertinent post.

One Millions Moms is an advocacy group promoting decency in the media yes. I am unware that they have targeted any individual and attempted to destroy him. Do you know of such a case?

CandyCorn and NYCarbineer and one or two others were referenced since they targeted me and misrepresented and mischaracterized what I have posted here and accused me of saying things I did not say. And that is the ONLY reason they were targeted for specific criticism from me. I did not say they have behaved any worse than anybody else. If any conservative had misrepresented or mischaracterized my comments as they did, they would also have been targeted for similar rebuttal. And if you think I have not urged conservatives to get back on topic as I have urged those two, you need to get your eyes checked.

Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.

And frankly, I'm pretty discouraged that we apparently have so few members at USMB with the maturity to be civil and focused on such a topic and who have the ability to discuss it without making it partisan and attacking each other.