fbpx
Advertisements

Duck Dynasty star’s anti gay comments cause controversy

This topic contains 127 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Fionasdad 5 years, 11 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #174326

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I have never watched the show and have no desire to. I am sick of seeing their costumes everywhere seeing anything about them. One of the stars made some anti-comments in a magazine and now A & E has put him in a time out for his comments. Once again, people are complaining about freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is where the right and the Tea Party folks get things confused. He can say whatever he wants to, just like Paula Deen, but there are repercussions for them with employers. One of my FB friends posted about this and she is a fan of the show I guess and is a Christian and doesn’t think he did anything wrong.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-indefinite-666808

    A&E has placed Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on indefinite hiatus following anti-gay remarks he made in a recent profile in GQ.

    “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

    The news comes after Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality in an interview with the magazine. He’ll likely appear in season four, which bows Jan. 15, since production is largely wrapped.

    “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” Robertson says in the January issue of the men’s magazine. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

    During a discussion about repentance and God, Robertson is asked what he finds sinful.

    “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he says. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

    He goes on to paraphrase Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

    GLAAD on Wednesday condemned his remarks as “some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication” and said “his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.”

    “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

    GLAAD responded to A&E’s suspension, commending the network for its swift decision. “What’s clear is that such hateful anti-gay comments are unacceptable to fans, viewers, and networks alike,” GLAAD’s Cruz said late Wednesday. “By taking quick action and removing Robertson from future filming, A&E has sent a strong message that discrimination is neither a Christian nor an American value.”

    Robertson released his own statement in response to the flap early Wednesday: “I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

    Duck Dynasty has become a breakout hit for A&E, regularly luring 9 million-plus viewers. The Robertson clan landed on The Hollywood Reporter magazine’s 2013 Rule Breakers list, which hit newsstands Wednesday. Phil’s son Willie Robertson, who is featured on the cover, tells THR of the show’s success: “It’s a combination of the faith, the positive and the family aspect … and it’s funny.”

    Adds his brother Jase Robertson: “We’re just kind of doing what we do, and people identify with that.”

    The Human Rights Campaign also slammed Robertson for his statements.

    “Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations,” president Chad Griffin said in a statement. “We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful. We also know that Americans of faith follow the Golden Rule — treating others with the respect and dignity you’d wish to be treated with. As a role model on a show that attracts millions of viewers, Phil Robertson has a responsibility to set a positive example for young Americans — not shame and ridicule them because of who they are. The A+E Network should take immediate action to condemn Phil Robertson’s remarks and make clear they don’t support his views.”

  • #261977

    joy
    Participant
    • Topics - 99
    • Replies - 3,934
    • Total Posts - 4,033

    1. If reality tv stars are your role model then there is a big problem.
    2. See above.

  • #262043

    Ila
    Participant
    • Topics - 87
    • Replies - 1,458
    • Total Posts - 1,545

    This totally disappoints me as I am a big fan of the show.

  • #261919

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Eg are troubling is the lack of understanding of the First Amendment. He has the right to say what he did. That’s not the issue. Employers and business partners have the right to end or change their relationships with him. What he said was ignorant and unnecessary and just not very smart.

  • #262029

    pepsilvr
    Member
    • Topics - 105
    • Replies - 1,278
    • Total Posts - 1,383

    I have never seen the show. Only seen clips of it. He might have needed some media training so he could do a better job of keeping his foot out of his mouth. His beliefs and opinions are his own. Sharing them is his choice and right but there are consequences. From what I have seen in the clips and some of the talk show interviews I have seen, he might be one of those people who would be easily converted into an LGBT supporter if someone he was really close to and truly cared about came out and admitted they were gay.

  • #262020

    tomwaltman
    Member
    • Topics - 96
    • Replies - 6,770
    • Total Posts - 6,866

    I think his musings over the desirability of a woman over a man are hilarious. He has obviously given that some thought, and he doesn’t sound judgmental as much as having made a choice based on the merits. I have often thought, “She’s got more to offer…”

  • #262023

    sea
    Participant
    • Topics - 107
    • Replies - 3,062
    • Total Posts - 3,169

    @EGL Admin 90455 wrote:

    Eg are troubling is the lack of understanding of the First Amendment. He has the right to say what he did. That’s not the issue. Employers and business partners have the right to end or change their relationships with him. What he said was ignorant and unnecessary and just not very smart.

    I don’t agree with this guy, have not watched the show, but I do believe he has the right to say and feel however he wants. That said, I agree what Admin says about employers and business partners and their right to alter their deals.

    Additionally, I don’t necessarily believe his opinions are “vile and extreme”. I think they are his own opinions but I’m not seeing the big huge deal in there. Who cares about this guy’s opinion anyway?

  • #262009

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    I don’t watch the show-have never seen it and have no interest in it. Yes, he can say whatever he wants. If the show is supposed to be a reality show than what he says really shouldn’t be a deal breaker no matter how ignorant he sounds, but I totally understand that the network thinks that it reflects badly on them to have one of their “stars” speaking like he did. I don’t have any sympathy for him though because I’m sure he knew his comments could get him in trouble and cost him his show and he still chose to say them.

  • #261981

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    I have never, ever understood the attraction to that show or the cast.

  • #261920

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I think this is what got him in trouble.

    “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he says. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

    He could have left at “I don’t believe in homosexuality or adultery.” Mentioning bestiality in there too I think made it seem like he was equating that with homosexuality. Having sex with animals is like having sex with a person?

    Don’t want to stereotype, but I will anyway. The show and the people on it look like a bunch of hicks/white trash types and these comments pretty much reinforce that.

    Tom: I think his musings over the desirability of a woman over a man are hilarious. He has obviously given that some thought, and he doesn’t sound judgmental as much as having made a choice based on the merits. I have often thought, “She’s got more to offer…”

    There are a lot of times that I can’t understand why people are attracted to the people they are attracted to. Why a guy would be attracted to another guy is just one of those things.

  • #261982

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    This makes me furious, but for other reasons. I could not care less what happens to Phil Robertson. Plus, he looked a fool for his remarks.

    What angers me is that the network had no choice, because these miserable Progressives, who are highly organized, take no greater delight than holding a network, publisher, or corporation hostage. If A&E hadn’t suspended him, they’d be in the headlines for days if not weeks with the sympathetic media and literally arm wrestle them down.

    And, we let them get away with it because we don’t have the megaphone they do. Full credit to the Obama Administration for supporting them, too.

    The First Amendment should more than conditional free speech, subjected to the agreement of special interest groups.

  • #261921

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    This is another self inflicted wound. Can’t always blame the media and liberals when a person puts their foot in their mouth. You have to be pretty dimwitted to say these things and think you can get away with it.

  • #262024

    sea
    Participant
    • Topics - 107
    • Replies - 3,062
    • Total Posts - 3,169

    @EGL Admin 90488 wrote:

    This is another self inflicted wound. Can’t always blame the media and liberals when a person puts their foot in their mouth. You have to be pretty dimwitted to say these things and think you can get away with it.

    This is where you lose me. Anyone can say anything they want – UNLESS it can be perceived as racist, sexist, homophobic, blah blah blah. Then you can no longer say it. It’s just not allowed. No free speech if it is one of those things. Gasp! I can’t believe someone said this! Gasp! I can’t believe someone thinks this! Big fat deal. This guy didn’t get away with it, he’s being punished by the media and his network. A controversial statement will get you more publicity than anything. I don’t agree with him at all, and I don’t agree with flag burning – but there it is.

  • #262027

    violarose
    Member
    • Topics - 106
    • Replies - 2,959
    • Total Posts - 3,065

    Not knowing really what the show is about, but seeing their stuff everywhere for sale. I kind of get the premise of what the show is about. His statements are quite different than how most people would say it, so it seemed kind of perfect for him. If anybody watches the show, are you really surprised that this man feels this way and would say it that way? I think that is kind of what reality shows are about.

  • #261922

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @sea 90489 wrote:

    This is where you lose me. Anyone can say anything they want – UNLESS it can be perceived as racist, sexist, homophobic, blah blah blah. Then you can no longer say it. It’s just not allowed. No free speech if it is one of those things. Gasp! I can’t believe someone said this! Gasp! I can’t believe someone thinks this! Big fat deal. This guy didn’t get away with it, he’s being punished by the media and his network. A controversial statement will get you more publicity than anything. I don’t agree with him at all, and I don’t agree with flag burning – but there it is.

    Saying whatever you want and not having ANY repercussions from it are two different things. The people who are upset about it also have the same right to voice their opinion do they not? Don’t they have the right to call and write the network complaining about it? His comments were intolerant at best. I don’t think it’s homophobia. Not sure anyone has a “fear” of homosexuals. I think it’s more that he dislikes gay people and doesn’t agree with what their lifestyle.

    I don’t like flag burning either. In our society today, unless you are living under a rock, then you know you can’t say those types of things. He was looking to stir things up. He got more than he bargained for.

    What makes me mad is a person walking into a room and peeing on the floor and then complaining about the reaction they get. What’s almost as bad as all this PC stuff is the overreaction to it in some cases. LC is pissed because the media and libs are crucifying this guy. This guy dug his own grave. It was an off the cuff remark made to someone else. It was during an interview where he had time to think. He’s a good ‘ol boy and was playing to his peeps I guess. A lot of the people who watch and like the show are not Christians. I see people all the time posting about it and they aren’t Conservatives. They are liberals.

  • #261958

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @lc 90484 wrote:

    What angers me is that the network had no choice, because these miserable Progressives, who are highly organized, take no greater delight than holding a network, publisher, or corporation hostage. If A&E hadn’t suspended him, they’d be in the headlines for days if not weeks with the sympathetic media and literally arm wrestle them down.

    The First Amendment should more than conditional free speech, subjected to the agreement of special interest groups.

    You’ll see more of this going forward from a variety of social groups targeting each other. This has little to do with government, though. It has to do with the relatively low costs of getting this information published and then coordinating a response. The People are empowering themselves on many levels all the way down to what used to be tiny, fringe groups that were incapable of spending enough to be heard. Now they can because the costs have plummeted.

    Clay Shirky has written about this. So has David Brin. It will continue to matter more and more, so it would be wise to devise a defense strategy NOW for what you hold near and dear.

  • #262028

    violarose
    Member
    • Topics - 106
    • Replies - 2,959
    • Total Posts - 3,065

    Lets see where loyalty gets you now. As a family, they should all not be on the show. Stand together. (This has nothing to do with him or what he said, or whether I agree or not). We are flighty people, loyalty is hard to get anymore.

  • #262044

    Ila
    Participant
    • Topics - 87
    • Replies - 1,458
    • Total Posts - 1,545

    I watch the show, and am NOT surprised he said it.

  • #262046

    Karen
    Member
    • Topics - 15
    • Replies - 504
    • Total Posts - 519

    I wouldn’t be surprised if this was calculated and intentional. they may be rednecks but they’re smart rednecks. Maybe they want to get out of their contract with A&E and move on to a bigger network. Or when he does come back after his hiatus, it’ll be promoted like crazy and get huge ratings. If nothing else, their Christian supporters, and maybe even Christians that don’t like the show, will start buying their merchandise more to “show their support.”

    It certainly is getting a lot of media attention, and is that ever really a horrible thing?

  • #262047

    Fionasdad
    Member
    • Topics - 0
    • Replies - 29
    • Total Posts - 29

    I heard this morning that the family is standing behind Phil. I’ve watched the show a couple times hated one time and liked it the next. From what I’ve seen I don’t think it’s a surprise that Phil said what he did…And I don’t think that the core of the the fans of the show will really care and probably agree with him.

    What would be interesting to see what A&E does if the family of their number 1 tv show stop producing the show to show support for Phil…That’s what is interesting to me…

  • #262025

    sea
    Participant
    • Topics - 107
    • Replies - 3,062
    • Total Posts - 3,169

    @karen 90520 wrote:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if this was calculated and intentional. they may be rednecks but they’re smart rednecks. Maybe they want to get out of their contract with A&E and move on to a bigger network. Or when he does come back after his hiatus, it’ll be promoted like crazy and get huge ratings. If nothing else, their Christian supporters, and maybe even Christians that don’t like the show, will start buying their merchandise more to “show their support.”

    It certainly is getting a lot of media attention, and is that ever really a horrible thing?

    This certainly makes sense!!!

    Admin, you’re right. He has the right to say what he wants, people have the right to be outraged about it, and networks have the right to banish him. Free country and all.

  • #261923

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    He had to know something like this would happen. He’s just Miley Cyrus with a beard at this time. It’s all about the media.

  • #261983

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    There was some commentary last night that A&E was a liberal network and may have suspended the subject due to network policy and beliefs. I don’t buy that for a second. I still believe it was a pre-emptive move to avoid more press and to subvert the hostage takers. There was some weenie from GLADD on Fox last night who was trying to use air time to levy personal attacks on every name he could get out. These groups do not want a conversation; they want money and attention. He was trying to focus the conversation on Phil Robertson. Fortunately, at least in this case, the general sentiment is not about him but about expressing offensive opinions. Most people are finally understanding that is the core issue, not simply Robertson’s statements.

    Interesting–there was another Fox contributor who said that some gay people use their gayness as an identity rather than a preference and that is why they tend to take these things personally. She may have a point; I hadn’t considered that.

  • #261924

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I think A & E absolutely moved quickly to avoid advertisers pulling out like what happened with Paula Deen. This may have been a calculated move, but I can’t see how it benefits the show or the people in it. The show was very popular and has a loyal following. Anytime you have controversy like this, you force people to choose sides and you may gain something but you also lose as well. A lot of people want to be entertained and don’t want to hear about your political opinions. How often has it worked out to the benefit overall to people? It usually backfires. Look at someone like Tom Cruise. He’s still a star but now he has a lot of people who will not watch his movies because of his antics on Oprah and Scientology. He’s not as popular as he was.

    This show will not gain as much as support as it will lose. Christians who are not watching the show will not all the sudden start because of this. I haven’t watched 1 minute of the show. I know who they are, but I had no idea of their religious opinions. I was just tired of seeing their clothing and costumes everywhere. Some of our friends are into it I guess and their son is into it and at his birthday, he’s 11, he got a lot of Ducks stuff. Then at Halloween that was one of the most popular costumes this year.

  • #261984

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Walmart has free standing displays of Duck Dynasty stuff. I’m VERY tired of it too. But, that’s us. I guess a lot of people like the show. I can guarantee you that the current ratings, starting two days ago, are the highest ever. That may not last. I doubt any of the fans are going to tune out, but plenty of people will be watching out of curiosity, at least for a brief time. I have no idea who the show appeals to. To me it was a bunch of brush people that got a great contract.

  • #262031

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401
  • #261925

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I don’t think so. I think more likely it’s his supporters who are hiding from their own bigotry. They seem a little too vocal in defense of him and “free speech”.

  • #262030

    govwatcher
    Participant
    • Topics - 12
    • Replies - 238
    • Total Posts - 250

    Never watched the show and don’t agree with his statements. BUT – as I understand it the statements were not made on the show, they were made in an print interview with GQ magazine. So it was off work behavior (if that means anything to anyone). Has anyone actually read the article?

    He has a right to his opinion (as wrong as I think he is). His employer has a right to discipline him for his work behavior, but I’m not sure if they do for expressing his opinion away from work. It would depend on what is in his employment contract.

    People have a right to decide to boycott the show, or his products, if they don’t like him. Other people have the right to defend him, or to start watching the show or buying his products to show their support.

    I don’t think anyone has a right to say he doesn’t have a right to express this opinion when it is asked.

  • #261978

    joy
    Participant
    • Topics - 99
    • Replies - 3,934
    • Total Posts - 4,033

    And why is it that the only time I ever see or hear the word beastiality is when someone like this brings it up? Maybe it is some kind of weird hangup.

  • #261985

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Here is the GQ article. It’s pretty good, actually. I didn’t find the word bestiality there–maybe I missed it or it was elsewhere.

    Matter of fact, I enjoyed it almost as much as catching Joy in a spelling error :biggrin:

  • #261926

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I was spelling it wrong too. My iPhone kept trying to correct it. I assumed it was “beast” not “best”

    You may want to buy you some of there spectacles to help ya with ya reading.

    Page 2,
    What, in your mind, is sinful?

    “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

    Start with homosexuality and morph out from there. Bestiality…..

    Anyone who thinks he wasn’t comparing the two is nuts.

  • #261986

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    I love Jay Leno’s line, saying he also offended Congress with the last four examples of sin.

    Sounds like he was quoting the Bible. You might not agree, but does he not have the right to be a fundamentalist? Is that no longer tolerable?

  • #261927

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @lc 90589 wrote:

    I love Jay Leno’s line, saying he also offended Congress with the last four examples of sin.

    Sounds like he was quoting the Bible. You might not agree, but does he not have the right to be a fundamentalist? Is that no longer tolerable?

    He can say whatever he wants as can his supporters and then everyone else can think and say what they want in response. It’s tolerable if you keep it to yourself or in your own group. If you’re a public person and say it then there will be repercussions. That’s just how it is. Whining and complaining about it like his supporters is a waste of time. Make your bed, you lie/lay in it.

  • #262010

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    Like it or not, when you have a television show you are a public personality and the network is going to do whatever they want to protect the image and brand they have created. I think people understand this when they sign on for a show, and if they are going to spout off on any topic that is possibly controversial, there could be serious consequences. No one forced him to answer those questions, and no one forced him to make the comparisons he did.

  • #261987

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Now Obama says he loves the show and watches it on AF 1. That could mean…

    1–Obama loves the show and watches it on AF 1
    2–Obama hates the show and never watches it
    3–He’s setting up an olive branch deal for the Blue Dogs that might vote out the Dems next year
    4–??

    Apparently Jon Stewart is defending him too.

    On the other side, A&E has received DEATH THREATS because of the suspension. Good Lord. DEATH THREATS??? Wouldn’t put it past the lefties to do this, but it could have been some cranks on the right too. We have plenty of ’em.

    A&E Network has had to beef up security at its New York headquarters after receiving death threats and suspicious packages from people enraged about the network’s decision to suspend Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson.

  • #261928

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Not sure why the lefties would make death threats or why you would think that. The far right has just as many if not more kooks who do that stuff. Abortion bombings and killings. Those are right wing kooks.

    People need to separate the two issues in this. I defend his right to say what he did. I also defend A & E’s right to do what they did. His comments were over the top and just not necessary. He didn’t need to go into the detail that he did. He could have mentioned sinners and left out gay people. Many way to tell people you are a devout Christian without offending people.

  • #261959

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    I just find it amusing when someone links various ‘deviant’ sexual behaviors and makes a living selling devices that trick ducks into thinking there is a mating opportunity nearby.

    Quack!

    Ah well. I guess this is more entertaining than the sexual activities of our politicians and other celebrities.

  • #261979

    joy
    Participant
    • Topics - 99
    • Replies - 3,934
    • Total Posts - 4,033

    @lc 90585 wrote:

    Here is the GQ article. It’s pretty good, actually. I didn’t find the word bestiality there–maybe I missed it or it was elsewhere.

    Matter of fact, I enjoyed it almost as much as catching Joy in a spelling error :biggrin:

    Told you I don’t spend much time on the subject. …..and I don’t have a nanny iPhone to watch over my spelling. 🙂

  • #262021

    tomwaltman
    Member
    • Topics - 96
    • Replies - 6,770
    • Total Posts - 6,866

    For everyone defending this guy on free speech grounds… Do you defend the employer’s right to terminate him? Or should employers be forced to employ those who make public statements that conflict with the employer’s needs? I think the employer’s right to terminate is the bigger deal here. There is no real First Amendment issue, as this is not governmental sensorship. The guy is now free to say anything he wants.

  • #262011

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    It was never a free speech issue, in my mind. He CAN say what he wants, and practice whatever religion he wants, without going to jail, or having the government come after him in some fashion. Freedom of speech and religion doesn’t mean that you can make inflammatory and controversial comments without repercussions from your employer. What you say and how you behave DOES reflect on your employer, especially when you are a public figure, as you have no time that is not work related when you are on a tv show, especially when it is supposed to be “reality”. Wasn’t that Dog the Bounty Hunter guy cancelled over racist comments he made on a phone call that his estranged son secretly recorded and made public? That guy wasn’t even giving an interview and he thought what he was saying was private and his network suspended and possibly cancelled him.

  • #261929

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Now the Stand with Phillies are bringing Miley Cyrus into it. Saying people are okay with what she did but not what Phil said. Completely apples and oranges. First of all she ripped a new one by just about everyone. But did didn’t criticize a large segment of society and tell them that they were immoral. Huge difference.

  • #262012

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    I agree with you Doc. Miley didn’t make comments about any group. And she was widely criticized for her behavior. Was she “suspended”, like he was? No. What would she have been suspended from? Had she still been on Disney and done half of what she’s done, I’m guessing Disney would have suspended her. One of the guys in a Disney show got a DUI and he was dropped from his show. Once Disney stopped filming “Hannah Montana” they stopped showing repeats of the show as well, but they continued showing repeats of other shows that had ended, like “Wizards of Waverly Place” and whatever that show with those annoying twin boys was. Disney didn’t like how her behavior reflected on them, and stopped showing her older shows, despite the fact they could have continued making money off her. It wasn’t the image they wanted to project.

  • #262013

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    This lady lost her job over a tweet she made. Does she have the same “free speech” rights at Phil?
    http://gma.yahoo.com/justine-sacco-fired-tweet-aids-africa-issues-apology-133847425–abc-news-topstories.html

  • #261988

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Fair point, Newmom, but it still doesn’t address the hostage takers from the left that come out of the woodwork after anything they don’t like is spoken or written. A&E certainly has the right to take any action against any property. As I said from the first, they didn’t have much choice due to the negative press, but given the character these convictions are nothing new and should not have been a surprise to anyone. He’s a fundamentalist Christian and very open and obtuse about it. Changing the channel is always an option.

    That’s why MSNBC anchors usually remain on the air. I can only think of two that have been let go recently. They have terrible ratings with far more controversial comments than Phil’s, but as they are a far left network we don’t hear much about them. The right tends to be more forgiving of divergent opinions than the left. Fox let Glenn Beck go a few years ago because he was tainting their image. They do try to present a somewhat balanced, albeit right leaning, approach. Beck is very controversial and most people don’t long favorably on him. He had some excellent points but he comes off as a crank. His “Blaze” website is remarkably well done though, and even quoted by the left on occasion as a news source.

  • #261930

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    As I said from the first, they didn’t have much choice due to the negative press, but given the character these convictions are nothing new and should not have been a surprise to anyone. He’s a fundamentalist Christian and very open and obtuse about it.

    Yes, but I don’t know he ever made these types of comments before. I don’t watch the show and until this had no idea of his beliefs. I have a lot of friends who are very far right Christians who I think agree with him and like he and a lot of Christians they just can’t deal with gay people. It’s this great abomination to them. When I see people on FB being so vocal in support of him, what comes to my mind is that they agree with what he said and it’s more about that than his right to say it, wink wink.

    Fair point, Newmom, but it still doesn’t address the hostage takers from the left that come out of the woodwork after anything they don’t like is spoken or written.

    I call baloney on that because the stuff he said and others say is stuff that makes a lot of people cringe. If I had read column before it hit the news, my thoughts would have been he’s another ignorant, backwoods A-hole and this will get him in trouble. We all know people think this way. That’s fine, that’s their right. Once you express that publicly you open yourself up to critique. This reminds me of some of the disagreements on here and the other site. People offer an opinion and get upset when it is criticized. As I said there and here, it’s not a blog. It’s a discussion forum. If you offer an opinion then others may respond. I know that turns people off. I do think that making others think about their opinions and consider another side is a good thing. I know I have changed some of my opinions over the years because of the comments of others. 10 years ago I would have standing with Phil and Paula Deen and calling out the PC’ers. Now I can see some of what they say. Now crying PC is like the reverse race card. One side complains about the comments and then the other side complains about the PC’ers. Both are trying to tear down the other side. Most of this stuff stems from race, gender or sexual preference. We come from a society that just 50 years ago was terribly racist, anti female and anti gay and it was accepted. Now it’s not. So the old farts who are a product of that area or environment are the ones who don’t like it who want to keep passing that down to the next generation. The ones complaining grew up in that era or their parents did and their parents passed it down to them. I grew up in that era and my family was like that too, but I think we are slowly evolving. We have tried to teach our kids tolerance of others. It doesn’t mean tolerant of their behavior. We don’t excuse any bad behavior, but we don’t criticize any group in the manner in which I grew up. Nothing anti gay, anti woman or against any ethnic race.

  • #262014

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    @lc 90676 wrote:

    Fair point, Newmom, but it still doesn’t address the hostage takers from the left that come out of the woodwork after anything they don’t like is spoken or written. A&E certainly has the right to take any action against any property. As I said from the first, they didn’t have much choice due to the negative press, but given the character these convictions are nothing new and should not have been a surprise to anyone. He’s a fundamentalist Christian and very open and obtuse about it. Changing the channel is always an option.

    That’s why MSNBC anchors usually remain on the air. I can only think of two that have been let go recently. They have terrible ratings with far more controversial comments than Phil’s, but as they are a far left network we don’t hear much about them. The right tends to be more forgiving of divergent opinions than the left. Fox let Glenn Beck go a few years ago because he was tainting their image. They do try to present a somewhat balanced, albeit right leaning, approach. Beck is very controversial and most people don’t long favorably on him. He had some excellent points but he comes off as a crank. His “Blaze” website is remarkably well done though, and even quoted by the left on occasion as a news source.

    Why address them at all? They are there, just like those on the far, far right that hijack the political process by making demands of candidates each election cycle. I don’t like them anymore than I dislike those on the far left, but they are there, nonetheless.

  • #261989

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Trying to draw equal comparisons between the right and the left in these matters is futile; you’re only fooling yourselves. Couple of easy examples.

    Nelson Mandela was a communist and vocal as to his hatred of white people. Yet, his funeral was one of the largest ever. Only a very small minority put these two items above his accomplishments. Most people do not support communism; most people do not hate white people. Yet, we weigh the positives vs. the negatives and in the case of most people, the positives were viewed as far greater than the negatives, much of which is understandable given his imprisonment. What if the races were reversed? Would the sentiment be the same? You make that call, but be honest.

    Charles Goethe was one of the most major philanthropists and conservationists in the history of Sacramento. He founded Sac State, and donated land for one of the largest and most prominent parks in the region. Goethe was also a Nazi sympathizer. A few years ago, a small group of activists bullied the county into changing the park’s name to River Bend. Yet, I don’t remember hearing of any suggestions to return the park’s value or the funds dedicated to CSUS to his estate. Which deed, action, or belief was more prominent? If he had been a sympathizer for philosophies repressible to the right, would they have called for a name change? Again, you make that call.

    Doc, it sounds like your position is that religious beliefs should take a back seat to societal trends. I think you’d have a lot of people taking issue with that.
    If you think people are winking when they’re giving opinions and taking positions, then the test is their reaction to reverse positions. Would they stand in defense of someone burning a flag? They should, even though they may hate it. Would they support the right for an atheist to be vocal? They have to, if they’re consistent. Do they call for the firing of the man on MSNBC who recently called Megyn Kelly a white supremacist because of her Santa stuff? They shouldn’t, even though they might, and rightly so, disagree.

    I think most of us on the right just take most of this media stuff, shrug it off, and say whatever, dude.I don’t agree but you’ve got the right to your opinion. I think we stop short when someone on TV calls for a president to die, but that doesn’t seem to bother the lefties much. Now that’s not legal!

    Edit: Like you, I’ve never watched a full show, but I’ve read that Phil was constantly quoting the Bible. Also, apparently A&E warned him at least once to settle down on some topic. I don’t know if he ever addressed homosexuality on the program, but, as we know, the Bible thumpers aren’t fans. So, A&E knew exactly what their property was about, and all was fine until he grabbed the third rail a little too hard, albeit off air, and the bullies emerged as usual.

  • #261931

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Doc, it sounds like your position is that religious beliefs should take a back seat to societal trends.

    If you mean not being racist or disliking gay people just because they are gay, then yes I do believe in that regard that they should take a backseat. Why is homosexuality such as huge thing for the right? There are countless other sins, why does being gay upset so many people on the right?

    You said that the right is more tolerant than the left. I don’t think so. I think it’s pretty evenly distributed. There are lots of tolerant people on both sides. There are also intolerant folks on both sides. Both have groups that are powerful and make a lot of noise when they get upset. I think the left gets intolerant of Christians because of the actions that Christians take first.

    Let’s say you’re a business owner and someone that is representing you makes comments that upset a lot of people and then your customers threaten to boycott, maybe business partners pull out, you face losing money, do you keep the person on or let them go? I don’t know if he should be fired. It’s not my business, I don’t watch the show and don’t care either way. I don’t generally support or go out of way either way on these boycotts. I’m not going to boycott a business because they upset someone else.

    If you think people are winking when they’re giving opinions and taking positions, then the test is their reaction to reverse positions.

    I have no doubt none of them would be defending someone who said something negative against Christians. Not one of them would be posting I stand with “Phil” or talking about free speech if he had made comments against Christians.

    Do they call for the firing of the man on MSNBC who recently called Megyn Kelly a white supremacist because of her Santa stuff? They shouldn’t, even though they might, and rightly so, disagree.

    That’s not even remotely similar. Criticizing Megyn Kelly for her comments is not that same as criticizing a whole group of people who have not done anything to warrant it. They haven’t said or done anything. Criticizing a group solely based on their gender, race or sexual preference and not on their actions or comments is being a bigot regardless of your reasons. I don’t care if your religion (my religion too) says it’s a sin. I am not going to condemn them and I will treat them (the group) as I would anyone else unless individuals do something to make me change my opinion of the individuals, but I can’t let it make me think everyone in that group is bad because of that. Megyn Kelly is a person. Criticizing her is criticizing her individual actions or comments. I agree with her comments about Santa. Criticizing ALL gay people is far different. How would you like people to look down at you simply because you were gay, or a female or some other race and you had never met them or done anything wrong? Your religion doesn’t give you the right to put down people who are not breaking any laws legally or morally. They are not stealing, cheating, committing adultery. or harming anyone. They are living their lives just with a person of the same sex.

  • #262045

    ErinO
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 795
    • Total Posts - 804

    @EGL Admin 90591 wrote:

    He can say whatever he wants as can his supporters and then everyone else can think and say what they want in response. It’s tolerable if you keep it to yourself or in your own group. If you’re a public person and say it then there will be repercussions. That’s just how it is. Whining and complaining about it like his supporters is a waste of time. Make your bed, you lie/lay in it.

    That sums up my feelings on this issue completely. Of course everyone has freedom to express their own opinions. But be prepared for the consequences if your opinions are offensive to others, because they have a right to respond as well, and it might be with their pocketbook. That’s how it works. I don’t want to buy any of his products knowing that the proceeds support a person with ideas that are so abhorrent to me.

  • #261990

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    @erino 90694 wrote:

    I don’t want to buy any of his products knowing that the proceeds support a person with ideas that are so abhorrent to me.

    Would you have previously? No, of course you wouldn’t. I don’t think anyone who was a hater or non-fan before feels much differently, and it’s doubtful the fans are going away. I’m ambivalent, both before and after. I don’t agree with his convictions, but he’s protected under the First Amendment in at least two ways, and that’s the law of the land. Going along with social trends isn’t a mandate; it’s a choice, and one we’re all free to make without regard to or notwithstanding consequences. Abiding by the Constitution isn’t.

  • #261932

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Constitution isn’t even an issue in this. No one is trying to legally force him to be quiet. Bringing up free speech and the Constitution is a red herring. Doesn’t apply and no one is trying to keep from saying his piece.

  • #261991

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Yes it does, Doc. Along with freedom of speech, which this is in spirit but not legally applicable due to a non-public broadcast, the First also provides for freedom of religion, and unless I’ve missed something, doesn’t condition that on social trending.

  • #261933

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Freedom to practice your own religion as long as it doesn’t hurt others. Again it prevents the government from coming after religions. Doesn’t prevent the general public from protesting it. Neither applies in this case. No one is preventing him from speaking or practicing his religion are they? That protection doesn’t extend to putting your foot in your mouth.

  • #262015

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    @lc 90698 wrote:

    Yes it does, Doc. Along with freedom of speech, which this is in spirit but not legally applicable due to a non-public broadcast, the First also provides for freedom of religion, and unless I’ve missed something, doesn’t condition that on social trending.

    The government isn’t at all involved in this. He isn’t being prosecuted for his statements or his religious beliefs. No one is telling him he can’t be a Christian or else face some kind of repercussions from the government. No law enforcement or government entity is telling him he needs to change his religious beliefs or not speak his mind. He is free to speak his mind, as he did. And his employer is also free to terminate his employment. He had a contract, and he broke it. For now he will be suspended. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can say whatever you want and not face the ramifications of your statements.

  • #261934

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. Freedom of speech has ZERO to do with this. Freedom of religion has ZERO to do with this. Those amendments only protect you from prosecution. It doesn’t guarantee you keep your job. Doesn’t protect you from the public condemning you or protesting against you. Society does change.

  • #261960

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    WAS he an employee?

    Aren’t these things usually governed by contracts with clauses that enable the parties to exit in certain situations?

  • #261961

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    The flip side to the ‘freedom of speech’ issue is the ‘freedom of press’ issue.
    A&E owns the press and has quite a bit of leeway in what they choose to print with it.

  • #262016

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    @adiffer 90719 wrote:

    WAS he an employee?

    Aren’t these things usually governed by contracts with clauses that enable the parties to exit in certain situations?

    I’m guessing a contract, with specifics allowing A&E to do exactly this.

  • #261935

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970
  • #261992

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Bingo. There’s the hypocrisy, and THAT is the point. The First gives us freedom of religion in law, intent, and spirit. When anyone brings up Islam which, for some sects, condones the murder of homosexuals and women for even minor infractions of the Talmud, the left is instantly up in arms defending them. “This is NOT a Christian nation!. This is NOT a theocracy! They should have the right to practice their religion JUST AS MUCH AS CHRISTIANS!”

    Yet, when an evangelical Christian comes forth with his beliefs, they go apoplectic.

  • #261936

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    When anyone brings up Islam which, for some sects, condones the murder of homosexuals and women for even minor infractions of the Talmud, the left is instantly up in arms defending them.

    Baloney. What they say is you can’t condemn all Muslims over it. No one is condemning all Christians over what this guy said. Are practicing muslims killing people here in the US over minor infractions? I think you’re trying so hard to pin this on the left, bringing up free speech and freedom of religion and now Islam that you’re missing the point of all this.

    It sounds like what you want is for anyone to say anything they want and have no repercussions for it at all. He can practice his religion all he wants. Did you read the link I gave? That’s what he did yesterday. He practiced his religion. He can also have free speech too. He did that again yesterday. You just don’t want him to have any repercussions from it and that’s not how it works. This ain’t the good ol’ days where we can talk openly about colored people, fags and queers and get away with it. Not saying the good ol’ days for me, but for those who I guess miss those days. Paula Deen and Robertson are still loving in that time. Funny thing is both are from the south which I keep hearing from some people is more tolerant and accepting. Yeah accepting as long as those people know their place.

  • #261993

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Doc, it’s always good to hear the minority opinion;-) We don’t need much help “pinning this on the left.” They’re doing just fine on their own, and apparently losing the argument, given the reinstatement of Duck Dynasty merch due to complaints. Again, you don’t have to agree with him on religion, most people do not. Because they buy his stupid gear doesn’t mean you agree with his religious convictions. Fortunately, it seems the majority recognize the leftist bullies at work again and this time aren’t being quiet about it. I think we can thank Obama’s fails for that too.

  • #262022

    tomwaltman
    Member
    • Topics - 96
    • Replies - 6,770
    • Total Posts - 6,866

    @EGL Admin 90715 wrote:

    I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. Freedom of speech has ZERO to do with this. Freedom of religion has ZERO to do with this. Those amendments only protect you from prosecution. It doesn’t guarantee you keep your job. Doesn’t protect you from the public condemning you or protesting against you. Society does change.

    Actually, Doc, there are Federal laws that prohibit any employer from discriminating against you because of your religion, amongst other things…

  • #261937

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    That doesn’t apply here.

    LC, maybe you can tell us again how great Paula Deen is doing. 🙂

    The resinstatement of merchandise was by Cracker Barrel. Not a shock. They are based in the south. This is acceptable down there. They would be stupid not to do that. You have to know your clientele. Throw up some confederate flags and have a blacks only section too while they are at it.

  • #261994

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Doesn’t apply where…in the Docstitution? :sarcastic

  • #262032

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @EGL Admin 90696 wrote:

    Constitution isn’t even an issue in this. No one is trying to legally force him to be quiet. Bringing up free speech and the Constitution is a red herring. Doesn’t apply and no one is trying to keep from saying his piece.

    How do you equate that with the health club that fires a fat worker, because the image doesn’t “fit” (no pun intended) but then is forced to pay restitution? Or Hobby Lobby, a privately owned business that has always started workdays with a prayer, being sued by a worker who doesn’t want to pray? Or the same private company that opposes abortion being sued by government to force them to provide coverage for it (government lost that one).

  • #261938

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @lc 90750 wrote:

    Doesn’t apply where…in the Docstitution? :sarcastic

    Dude you need to come into the next century. It’s not the 60’s. He’s not being persecuted for his religion. He’s paid to play a part on a show. Freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee you can say whatever you want without repercussions. Do you not understand that? Apparently you don’t because you think he’s right and everyone else is wrong.

  • #261939

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @politicopedro 90756 wrote:

    How do you equate that with the health club that fires a fat worker, because the image doesn’t “fit” (no pun intended) but then is forced to pay restitution? Or Hobby Lobby, a privately owned business that has always started workdays with a prayer, being sued by a worker who doesn’t want to pray? Or the same private company that opposes abortion being sued by government to force them to provide coverage for it (government lost that one).

    Those aren’t similar situations. Not sure about those others why that was the decision.

    Was the prayer voluntary or mandatory? Was the overweight gal fired because of her weight? Are they an at-will employer?

  • #262033

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    No, the fat girl was fired because she prayed, the prayer was only mandatory if you were fat, and government trying to force a private company to pay for abortions was… who’s decision?

    Of course they are similar. You said the Constitution only applied to prosecution, which is absurd. The Constitution is the basis for our laws, it is from the Constitution our laws derive their authority AND limitations. Those laws govern relationships between citizens as well as regulating government. These are all examples of the law (and by extension the Constitution) enforcing beliefs – right or wrong.

  • #261995

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Hang in there, Doc! One of the lefties is sure to throw you a life ring….I think…

  • #261940

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @lc 90771 wrote:

    Hang in there, Doc! One of the lefties is sure to throw you a life ring….I think…

    I think they’ve already spoken pretty clearly. It’s only you and PP who disagree and even then it’s a “look over there” and complaining about the left.

  • #261941

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @politicopedro 90765 wrote:

    No, the fat girl was fired because she prayed, the prayer was only mandatory if you were fat, and government trying to force a private company to pay for abortions was… who’s decision?

    Of course they are similar. You said the Constitution only applied to prosecution, which is absurd. The Constitution is the basis for our laws, it is from the Constitution our laws derive their authority AND limitations. Those laws govern relationships between citizens as well as regulating government. They are all examples of the law (and by extension enforcing beliefs – right or wrong.

    What laws have been broken? You said yourself that A & E has the right to do what they did. So what is your argument other than the left is bad?

  • #261942

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Let’s try and clear this up.

    Are you defending his right to say what he said? My answer is yes.

    Are you defending what he said? My answer is no.

    Does A & E have the right to do what they did? My answer is yes.

  • #262034

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    My statement is clear to those not trying to twist it for their own uses: the hypocrisy of the “tolerant” left is worthy of mocking.

    Yes, it is a Constitutional issue. The left were perfectly happy to use the law to stop prayer, require people to pay for abortions, or be forced to hire fat people. But don’t dare apply those same standards to someone who says something they object to…

    Phil is free to say what he wishes, A&E is free to say what they wish (part of “free speech” is deciding who says what on your dime). BUT we should apply that same standard to everyone – even (gasp) the right to pray… and if you don’t, I (or anyone else) is free to mock the hypocrisy (and if you don’t understand how “laws” work, we can mock that too) Clear enough?

  • #261943

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Fortunately for me I’m not being a hypocrite.

  • #261980

    joy
    Participant
    • Topics - 99
    • Replies - 3,934
    • Total Posts - 4,033

    @EGL Admin 90775 wrote:

    Let’s try and clear this up.

    Are you defending his right to say what he said? My answer is yes.

    Are you defending what he said? My answer is no.

    Does A & E have the right to do what they did? My answer is yes.

    But what about the left? They’re so baaaaaaaaad!!!!

  • #261944

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    My follow up question is

    Do you not care about the first 3 questions and just want to complain about the left?

    Cracks me up how it’s anyone else’s fault but the yahoo who said what he did.

  • #262035

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    I do care about the 3 other questions – but since I agree (although candidly I don’t care what either he said or what A&E did) there is no need to respond unless you’re fishing for compliments. But your claim that it is not a Constitutional issue is absurdly wrong.

    And those who proclaim their tolerance but act intolerantly don’t crack me up – because the results are serious, and they’ve earned any scorn we can muster.

  • #261945

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    What the left or the media does is another issue separate from this. Outside of whining about the unfairness of the media I don’t get what the issue is with you and LC on this. Why bring freedom of speech and religion into this? Neither is being infringed upon in this case is it?

  • #261962

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    The People CAN infringe on a person’s freedom of speech and religion. Whether the victim is protected or not remains to be seen.

    The people who are dishing up the repercussions for the GQ comments could be viewed as being hypocritical… or not. You’d have to look at individual cases to be sure. I think lumping them all together as ‘the left’ is kinda dumb as it attributes a stereotypical behavior to individuals and that may nor may not be true. It is far better to get specific when calling someone a hypocrite.

  • #261996

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    How timely, Here is a CLASSIC example of leftist censorship. Apparently the science forum over at Reddit banned people who do not agree with climate change. The author is calling for all “newspapers” to do the same. Those tolerant lefties–love to hear everyone’s opinions as long as they’re in agreement with ours.

  • #261963

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Yah. It seems they want to discuss science and the banned people don’t.

    It’s not that simple, my friend. Science discussions don’t work when people are talking about everything but science.

  • #261997

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    No. He’s promoting a ban on all climate change “deniers.”

    No problem banning those who are trolls or disruptive, but this goes far beyond keeping a site civil and on topic. Would you agree that Reddit leans quite far left, site wide? They have every right to follow what ever politics they choose, however the forum should not simply be labeled “science forum,climate change,” better “science forum,” ” Climate Change Believers Forum.”

    RedState.com is a conservative forum that promotes conservative candidates to local and national offices. They are very clear about their mission, and do not welcome divergent opinions. They banned Ron Paul posters from the last election. They make these positions very clear. They didn’t promote Red State as a political discussion forum then ban liberals.

    See the difference? And you’re OK with his suggesting ALL newspapers share in this ban of “non believers” when global warming/climate change is a discussion topic?

  • #261964

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    I read his suggested ban and laughed a bit. He comes across as a typical scientist who thinks truth should win out. Newspapers aren’t motivated to hold science discussions most of the time, though, so it is rather silly of him to ask them to follow moderation practices like those he has adopted.

    It doesn’t matter which way Reddit leans because it leans which ever way its participants lean. Moderated discussions lean the way of the moderator and that’s just the way life works. For science, though, the most important ‘leaning’ is toward the scientific method. If they aren’t doing that, they aren’t discussing science. The real deniers not only fail to add value to such discussions, they usually reduce it by getting other people off topic and into the emotional and political aspects of life. Moderators are supposed to halt that trend by using dictatorial powers, but they are balanced by the fact that participants can vote with their feet and set up discussions elsewhere when the moderator turns out to be a fascist.

    Don’t confuse politics with science at Reddit. Obviously, both happen in a discussion, but a participant who sticks to the science will get recognized for doing so by the others even when the moderator screws up. It isn’t about belief when you do it that way. It’s about falsifiability.

    The broader ban request won’t go anywhere significant. LOTS of scientists think the world revolves around their subject and approach and can’t see their obsession for what it is. You can safely ignore this one and it won’t matter even a little bit.

  • #262036

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @EGL Admin 90779 wrote:

    Fortunately for me I’m not being a hypocrite.

    But apparently you do not understand how the law works ;P

  • #261946

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @politicopedro 90932 wrote:

    But apparently you do not understand how the law works ;P

    The law has nothing to do with this particular case. Neither his freedom of speech or religion were violated. That’s my point. Everything else is some of you complaining about the evil left and the media bias.

  • #261998

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    A&E reinstated Phil and the show. Not sure who didn’t come out ahead on this deal except a few whiners. The Food Network never recovered from cutting Paula Deen. Apparently she’s doing her own thing with speaking tours,the restaurants, and still selling about as many books on Amazon as she was before the BFD. I’m sure she’s not quite yet where she was financially, nor is the Food Network, so who benefitted from that? Good to see someone standing up against the special interest groups. Change the channel, don’t buy books, please don’t buy the duck gear ;-), but silencing people because of disagreement or even an offensive remark, especially when the complainers are usually looking for money, isn’t the answer.

  • #261947

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Both will lose in the end. Once the dust settles the show will lose viewers. Not all Christians are bigots like Robertson, and make no mistake he is a bigot. I only wonder if people would be so adamant about defending his right to say what he said if they didn’t on some level agree with what he said. If he made disparaging remarks about conservatives, whites or Christians I doubt the same vigor of defense would be there by those people.

  • #261999

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    I imagine a fundamentalist Christian would agree with his statements. Those who think homosexuality is less a choice than a genetic composition, which I think has evidence on its side, would not. GLADD hasn’t made their statement yet. I imagine they have some wordsmithing to do if anyone is to assign them any credibility. Looks like the market has spoken. That’s as it should be.

    Whoops–guess they did. Let’s try the race card this time?

    UPDATE: GLAAD responds: “Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists. If dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A+E has chosen profits over African American and gay people – especially its employees and viewers.”

  • #261965

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Not to worry. GLAAD is playing to their base.

    Nothing new to see here. Move along. 8)

  • #261948

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Did ol’ Phil really suggest marrying girls as young as 15 or 16 in a video from 2009? Sounds like he was joking, but he did marry his wife at 16. It’s the type of thing a backwoods person like him would do.
    I can understand defending his right to say what he did, but those who actually agree with what he said or what he stands for probably have an IQ in the double digit range.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-marry-668017

    In a new video that has surfaced online, “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson tells a crowd at a Georgia Sportsmen Ministry event that it’s a good idea to marry girls when they are young.

    “You got to marry these girls when they are 15 or 16. They’ll pick your ducks,” he can be heard saying in the video from 2009.

    Of course, Robertson literally means that the girls will remove the feathers from ducks.

    “Look, you wait until they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket,” he tells the audience, who can be heard laughing during his speech.

    He advises that men check with a young girl’s parents before making anything official.

    “You need to check with mom and dad about that of course.”

    Robertson married his wife, Kay, when she was 16 years old, according to her bio on the family’s Duck Commander website. Still, some Twitter users speculated that based on the crowd’s laughter, Robertson may have been joking with his comments.

    “So Phil Robertson says men should marry girls when they’re 15 years old. Can anyone tell if this is a ‘joke,’ or ‘comedy?’…”

    According to People magazine, Robertson shared the exact same sentiment in his book “Happy, Happy, Happy: My Life and Legacy as the Duck Commander.” In the book, he writes that the idea of a 20 year old marrying for money is a joke.

    “Now, that’s a joke, and a lot of people seem to laugh at it, but there is a certain amount of truth in it,” he writes of his suggestion to marry a 15 year old.

    Upon seeing the video, many jumped to criticize the “Duck” dad. “Phil Robertson now says men should marry 15 yr old girls. So homosexuality is wrong but being a pedophile isn’t,” one user wrote.

    And some noted that this is just the newest controversy to come up about the A&E reality family.

    “Aaaaand the plot thickens. Get the popcorn, everyone – this is gonna get good…#DuckDynasty”

    On Friday, A&E reinstated Robertson after a nine-day suspension that came after GQ published controversial comments he made about homosexuals, African-Americans and other groups.

    A&E did not respond to FOX411’s request for comment about the 2009 video.

  • #261966

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Heh. My wife was quoting the line “They’ll pick your ducks.” to me and she was obviously annoyed and I couldn’t figure out why for a bit. She had to give me the context and it still took awhile to penetrate my skull. It didn’t help that I smirked after figuring it out. 8)

    There are places where you can do this legally and it isn’t all THAT unusual. You can also marry your first cousins in some states… if you want to do it. In other states these behaviors will get you jail time or a slit throat when a brother steps in.

    The guy is a dinosaur. Let him go with his generation to the fossil layer in which he belongs. He doesn’t need our attention.

  • #262026

    sea
    Participant
    • Topics - 107
    • Replies - 3,062
    • Total Posts - 3,169

    @adiffer 91125 wrote:

    You can also marry your first cousins in some states… if you want to do it.

    I’m pretty sure sunny California is one of those states.

  • #262000

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    What I find even more funny is that normally intelligent people are being fully duped by these posers. A recent interview by Fox’s Shep Smith with Phil’s son told the story. Shep tried at least twice to get his son to comment on the A&E situation. His son responded in a manner as polished as any career politician. They are like Gawker. They will do anything, say anything, publish anything, to get views.

    Search “pick your ducks” and you will find the same liberal, entertainment type sites re-drooling over DD, hoping to get views and comments. How much of this is a sham we don’t know, but we can bet most of it is. It is media engagement at its finest, and probably orchestrated by some of the highest priced strategists available.

    Proctor and Gamble invented “new and improved” through Tide in the 50s, and they’ve been using it since. Every few months something is changed up to re-start a sales cycle. Entertainment is no different. Re-starting a Nielsen cycle is essentially the same thing.

    The hang wringing over “this is the end for them” is laughable. Look at Mylie Cyrus. Oh, she’s finished. Right. She was one of the highest grossers in the biz last year and is now a household name. Her cycle wrap was a terrific performance on NYE. I’d love to see Phil’s bank statement. I’m sure the entire family, probably arm and arm with A&E, is laughing on their way to the bank.

  • #261949

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @sea 91130 wrote:

    I’m pretty sure sunny California is one of those states.

    Possibly, but I think it’s less likely here than in the south.

  • #261950

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Mylie Cyrus is staying popular because of her music. As long as people like her songs she will stay popular. Once that stops she becomes Britney Spears and not as popular.

    These backwoods yahoos are smart to cash in while they can. What’s scarier is that people actually watch this show. What’s also scary is that a lot of them identify themselves as republicans. Lowest common denominator.

  • #261967

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @sea 91130 wrote:

    I’m pretty sure sunny California is one of those states.

    Indeed it is. In your new home state it is a criminal offense. 8)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cousin_marriage_map1.svg

    I suspect these laws don’t get tested often, but with the separation of marriage from the expectation of procreation they probably will in the future.

  • #261968

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @EGL Admin 91138 wrote:

    These backwoods yahoos are smart to cash in while they can. What’s scarier is that people actually watch this show. What’s also scary is that a lot of them identify themselves as republicans. Lowest common denominator.

    Meh. Every party has its LCD people and stereotypes. I wouldn’t worry too much about this. A generation ago their ancestors where probably Democrats anyway. 8)

  • #262037

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    No, you said the Constitution only dealt with government relationship with citizens, I simply pointed out that is not the limits…

    I don’t blame the media for being liberal anymore than I blame Walrus’ for being fat or Al for being loquacious. That they are those things can explain how they react however. I do blame the media for being lazy, but that’s another conversation altogether.

    Nor do I consider Liberals/theLeft evil. I think they are wrong, however, and the hypocrisy of the “party of tolerance’s” intolerance is pretty evident.

    I also find it amusing when the corporate Republicans (ie big government “conservatives”) – who are for the most part responsible for the party’s losses – lecture everyone while blaming Tea Party, Libertarian GOP, and conservatives for those losses.

  • #262038

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @EGL Admin 90935 wrote:

    The law has nothing to do with this particular case. Neither his freedom of speech or religion were violated. That’s my point. Everything else is some of you complaining about the evil left and the media bias.

    No, you said the Constitution only dealt with government relationship with citizens, I simply pointed out that is not the limits…

    I don’t blame the media for being liberal anymore than I blame Walrus’ for being fat or Al for being loquacious. That they are those things can explain how they react however. I do blame the media for being lazy, but that’s another conversation altogether.

    Nor do I consider Liberals/theLeft evil. I think they are wrong, however, and the hypocrisy of the “party of tolerance’s” intolerance is pretty evident.

    I also find it amusing when the corporate Republicans (ie big government “conservatives”) – who are for the most part responsible for the party’s losses – lecture everyone while blaming Tea Party, Libertarian GOP, and conservatives for those losses.

  • #261951

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    If you take out those 3 segments, what is left of the GOP?

    One of the Tea Party’s issues is the average IQ seems to be under 100. They buy into conspiracy theories like no other group. They follow Sarah Palin, (see the first part about less than 100 IQ).

    This whole fiasco had zero to do with his right to free speech. It was about speech his defenders agreed with. What it did was filter out a little more the ones who don’t like gay people but hedge their bets and keep it quiet. The overly zealous defense of his right to free speech by some was nothing more than certification that they dislike gay people for no other reason than that they are gay. I was suspicious of some people that I know on FB and when I saw their comments and changing their profile pic to support him, that only confirmed it. There is a difference I think between being against gay marriage and not liking gay people. His comments were the latter. Over the top support of his “right” to say what he did and not suffer any repercussions is the same thing.

  • #261969

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    The Tea Party fans aren’t THAT dense. The lefties like to portray them as such, but they aren’t. What you are seeing is that some of them are neophytes. They react to provocation. For people with experience it is like shooting fish in a barrel when getting them to play the ‘stupid’ role.

    Sarah Palin isn’t that dumb either. She is clever in a few ways, just not very deep.

    In not sure who to call conservatives now, though. If the corporate types aren’t, doesn’t that just leave the libertarians in the GOP as fiscal conservatives and the evangelical/religious types as social conservatives? I know the social conservatives don’t have to be rabid and foaming at the mouth (a lefty portrayal of them) but I tend to think of them as traditionalists while the corporate types are closer to mercantilists. I’m running out of useful names.

    …I am the walrus…
    ..coo-coo-ka-choo..

  • #261952

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I think a lot of voters are fiscal conservatives but the politicians aren’t when it comes down to it. I don’t know if you can shrink government at this point. I don’t think anyone really wants to and where do you start? Across the board cuts and cut each department by “X” amount? A lot of them talk a good game but get elected and find themselves sucked into the system because that’s how it’s done.

    In Congress they need to eliminate adding these pork packages on to bills. That’s where you get a lot of waste. Some guy from Kentucky gets $1 million for his constituents for some useless project.

  • #262039

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @EGL Admin 91298 wrote:

    If you take out those 3 segments, what is left of the GOP?

    One of the Tea Party’s issues is the average IQ seems to be under 100. They buy into conspiracy theories like no other group. They follow Sarah Palin, (see the first part about less than 100 IQ).

    That is an absurd statement – and a juvenile response. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them stupid.

  • #261953

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @politicopedro 91322 wrote:

    That is an absurd statement – and a juvenile response. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them stupid.

    It depends on what they say and how they act. If anyone thinks Palin is a leader and wants to follow her then they are stupid.

  • #262040

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @adiffer 91302 wrote:

    The Tea Party fans aren’t THAT dense. The lefties like to portray them as such, but they aren’t. What you are seeing is that some of them are neophytes. They react to provocation. For people with experience it is like shooting fish in a barrel when getting them to play the ‘stupid’ role.

    Sarah Palin isn’t that dumb either. She is clever in a few ways, just not very deep.

    In not sure who to call conservatives now, though. If the corporate types aren’t, doesn’t that just leave the libertarians in the GOP as fiscal conservatives and the evangelical/religious types as social conservatives? I know the social conservatives don’t have to be rabid and foaming at the mouth (a lefty portrayal of them) but I tend to think of them as traditionalists while the corporate types are closer to mercantilists. I’m running out of useful names.

    You spend too much thought trying to find pigeon holes instead of looking at the broader landscape.

    The GOP isn’t monolithic (nor are Democrats)- its an uneven horizontal “coalition” that includes religious voters, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians (little “L”), corporate Republicans (what you refer to as “mercantile” – but I disagree), deficit hawks, imperialists, isolationists… and “blends”.

    My critique with “corpGOP” is that they led the 1998-2006 expansion of government, they support corporate welfare (but want to cut social welfare indiscriminately), pushed bailouts during the economic meltdown but resisted penalizing those who caused it (and who also benefited from the bailouts). Then they spent the last 4 years blaming Tea Party/libertarians/social conservatives, etc.

    I’ve studied public perception for years – including polling, focus groups, and election results. First, national/regional picture is NOT uniform – CA/west coast, Western States, Southwestern States, Sunbelt, Midwest, Southern, Mid Atlantic, North Eastern and Northern States are unique/different – although national trends do sweep across. In CA, the falloff for the GOP has less to do with conservatives (who were part of the coalition during GOP successes) than with the loss of GOP credibility as a “protector” of the middle-class taxpayer – driven primarily by national corpGOP. The CA GOP slide started in 1998 (and continues) because all the energy spent trying to “re-make the party” rather than regaining our position as defenders of fiscal restraint. In 1996, the GOP lost some ground- not because of conservatives (or any other group), but a natural deflation from massive ’94 gains.

    Demographics play a role – but remember that Latino voters supported the GOP and even supported Prop 187 – until ’94’s disastrous, distasteful and unnecessary “They are coming” ad flipped them (which can be compared to the African American voters overwhelming support for the GOP until FDR – and flipped hard after Nixon refused to take a call from MLK (who had endorsed Nixon over Kennedy) who had been arrested during a Civil Rights protest.

    Social issues almost never top issue concerns for the majority of voters – but liberal politicians use them as a lash to drive liberal voters. A plurality of Dems, and a majority of DTS and GOP voters, care far more about taxes, crime, education and roads than they do about same-sex marriage. The aggregate don’t vote for – or against – candidate based on that issue alone (regardless of the candidates position).

  • #262001

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Very good summary, PP.

    I think Doc gets his talking points from think progress.org, because they are exactly what the liberals want to be talking about for the GOP.

  • #261970

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @EGL Admin 91306 wrote:

    I think a lot of voters are fiscal conservatives but the politicians aren’t when it comes down to it. I don’t know if you can shrink government at this point. I don’t think anyone really wants to and where do you start? Across the board cuts and cut each department by “X” amount? A lot of them talk a good game but get elected and find themselves sucked into the system because that’s how it’s done.

    In Congress they need to eliminate adding these pork packages on to bills. That’s where you get a lot of waste. Some guy from Kentucky gets $1 million for his constituents for some useless project.

    Lots of us are fiscal conservatives until it impacts something we want personally. I might want funding for special needs kids and the defense budget. You might want something local and support for law and order. These things add up and no sane politician is going to listen to us when we say we want smaller government, but vote for our local needs. They are going to give lip service to our concerns and then vote for the ‘pork’ by bargaining with each other. The only way this stops is for us to recognize that the problem actually lies with us. All of us.

  • #261954

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @lc 91326 wrote:

    Very good summary, PP.

    I think Doc gets his talking points from think progress.org, because they are exactly what the liberals want to be talking about for the GOP.

    Nope. I don’t follow those websites like you guys. This is based on emails I get and stuff I see on FB. They appeal to simpletons.

    You’re way too caught up in the media and what they say. I don’t follow any of that stuff.

  • #261971

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @politicopedro 91325 wrote:

    You spend too much thought trying to find pigeon holes instead of looking at the broader landscape.

    No doubt of that. It comes from my science training. We tackle a new subject by categorizing things first and then looking for patterns among them. Categorize evidence badly and one winds up in a dead-end alley very quickly.

    Quote:
    The GOP isn’t monolithic (nor are Democrats)- its an uneven horizontal “coalition” that includes religious voters, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians (little “L”), corporate Republicans (what you refer to as “mercantile” – but I disagree), deficit hawks, imperialists, isolationists… and “blends”.

    I don’t really want to use ‘mercantilist’ in the fullest sense, but some of them appear to be as blind or confused about what creates value in their markets as the old mercantilists were. When rent-seeking and growth through innovation are rewarded equally well by shareholders, corporate managers are equally motivated to tinker with products and market rules and that’s not healthy for us. We need a separation clause between market and state at least as strong as between church and state, but I don’t know how to get there.

    Quote:
    My critique with “corpGOP” is that they led the 1998-2006 expansion of government, they support corporate welfare (but want to cut social welfare indiscriminately), pushed bailouts during the economic meltdown but resisted penalizing those who caused it (and who also benefited from the bailouts). Then they spent the last 4 years blaming Tea Party/libertarians/social conservatives, etc.

    I’ve studied public perception for years – including polling, focus groups, and election results. First, national/regional picture is NOT uniform – CA/west coast, Western States, Southwestern States, Sunbelt, Midwest, Southern, Mid Atlantic, North Eastern and Northern States are unique/different – although national trends do sweep across. In CA, the falloff for the GOP has less to do with conservatives (who were part of the coalition during GOP successes) than with the loss of GOP credibility as a “protector” of the middle-class taxpayer – driven primarily by national corpGOP. The CA GOP slide started in 1998 (and continues) because all the energy spent trying to “re-make the party” rather than regaining our position as defenders of fiscal restraint. In 1996, the GOP lost some ground- not because of conservatives (or any other group), but a natural deflation from massive ’94 gains.

    I hear you on this and I’m inclined to believe you. My recent experience with the Libertarians shows where some of the GOP voters are showing up… but only some. The stories they tell are generally about a loss of trust regarding fiscal restraint. The oldest Libertarians are generally the crazy zealots, but the newest are usually former GOP voters who behave as if they have been cast adrift.

    Quote:
    Demographics play a role – but remember that Latino voters supported the GOP and even supported Prop 187 – until ’94’s disastrous, distasteful and unnecessary “They are coming” ad flipped them (which can be compared to the African American voters overwhelming support for the GOP until FDR – and flipped hard after Nixon refused to take a call from MLK (who has endorsed Nixon over Kennedy) who had been arrested during a Civil Rights protest.

    heh. Mistakes were made…

    So… If I keep trying to pigeon hole people I’ll probably need lots more names with regional flavors and I’ll have to keep them flexible for when those mistakes are made. Doesn’t sound like it is worth the effort. I’m more interested in philosophical labels, though, as those tend not to shift so quickly. An individualist is going to be an individualist even if they change party alliegences. Collectivists are what they are too and will be found more on the left where ever that happens to be at the moment in terms of parties. I don’t see the parties themselves as fundamental structures, so when you say they are coalitions I’m nodding my head vigorously in agreement.

    Quote:
    Social issues almost never top issue concerns for the majority of voters – but liberal politicians use them as a lash to drive liberal voters. A plurality of Dems, and a majority of DTS and GOP voters, care far more about taxes, crime, education and roads than they do about same-sex marriage. The aggregate don’t vote for – or against – candidate based on that issue alone (regardless of the candidates position).

    I suspect there is one social issue that is a concern, but most politicians know better than to raise it. A few radical collectivists in the big urban centers aren’t so smart, but their voter base probably matches them so they only look like odd ducks when they make the national news. A few radical fundamentalists run into it too from the other direction. That one issue is a bit like a core value I think most of us share. “Let me be.” Each of the extremists can be used by members on the other side as a lash to drive votes, but I’m sure you know that.

    If there is one good thing to come out of the Prop 8 vote I think it is that there are certain things we simply shouldn’t place on the ballot. I’ve learned to be much more skeptical of people with those ironing boards and clipboards seeking signatures. It’s not that we shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but more about the notion that we shouldn’t. We should self-limit. If we did that I suspect we’d produce far fewer lashes for politically motivated people to us on us. When someone puts one of those clipboards in front of me now, I imagine myself agreeing to be tied to a whipping post and ask myself if the subject on the initiative is worth it. It usually isn’t.

  • #261972

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @EGL Admin 91329 wrote:

    Nope. I don’t follow those websites like you guys. This is based on emails I get and stuff I see on FB. They appeal to simpletons.

    You’re way too caught up in the media and what they say. I don’t follow any of that stuff.

    Then you might be getting this stuff second or third-hand. Track the pedigree of the ideas you see a bit and you might find the progressives behind them. The memes are infectious and I recognize some of them as being all too familiar. 8)

  • #262002

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Got it. Sounds like email and FB comments. I guess a lot of people get that email, stuff, I usually don’t. Once and awhile some crank starts a mass emailing about something related to abortion, religion, or Obama’s place of birth and I never read them. I have the president of the Oregon Tea Party on my FB. He posts about 20 times a day. Same stuff. Rarely read his either. I focus a lot on the media because that’s where most people get their talking points and it’s good to know what’s being said to the mass market because that’s what sways opinions.

  • #261955

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I just know from the people I know and what I see them post and pages they like. They are fans of Rush and Savage and they like these pages that make stupid associations. They aren’t bad people. They seem to be easily manipulated and believe things a little too easily.

  • #262003

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    @adiffer 91330 wrote:

    If there is one good thing to come out of the Prop 8 vote I think it is that there are certain things we simply shouldn’t place on the ballot. I’ve learned to be much more skeptical of people with those ironing boards and clipboards seeking signatures.

    You should be skeptical, because they get paid per signature. That’s why you’ll often see someone with multiple petitions. They should not be allowed public access as a NOP at grocery stores as they are because it’s just another business. Even the political parties pay per signature. The Democrats pay better too. Last time we did it I think the Dems paid $7 and we paid $5.

  • #261956

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @lc 91332 wrote:

    Got it. Sounds like email and FB comments. I guess a lot of people get that email, stuff, I usually don’t. Once and awhile some crank starts a mass emailing about something related to abortion, religion, or Obama’s place of birth and I never read them. I have the president of the Oregon Tea Party on my FB. He posts about 20 times a day. Same stuff. Rarely read his either. I focus a lot on the media because that’s where most people get their talking points and it’s good to know what’s being said to the mass market because that’s what sways opinions.

    But Tea Partiers are being swayed too by their own people. If Rush said Obama is Hitler’s grandson, half the yahoos would post that. They want to believe everything that’s bad. The left does it too of course.

  • #262004

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    @EGL Admin 91333 wrote:

    I just know from the people I know and what I see them post and pages they like. They are fans of Rush and Savage and they like these pages that make stupid associations. They aren’t bad people. They seem to be easily manipulated and believe things a little too easily.

    I hope you don’t assume that is mainstream. I don’t mind Rush at times. I listen about 2 hours each year. Savage is a total crank. I don’t think either has nearly the wide influence you may be assuming they do. Because the FB people are fans doesn’t mean they are “fans.” I have some sites I’ve “liked” just to see what they’re doing. Nothing much on the right, more on the left.

  • #262005

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Is Savage still on radio? I haven’t heard him since before the 2012 elections. Not looking….just thought he was off air.

  • #262006

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790
  • #261973

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    heh. If all that cold air is down here, what do you suppose is going on nearer the north pole?

    800px-N_Jetstream_Rossby_Waves_N.gif

    My FB feed is full of people who can’t tell the difference between weather and climate. If I were still grinding my teeth over this, I’d have had to had them all pulled by now. I don’t attribute that to an IQ of 100 or below, though. People just don’t get this stuff it seems.

  • #262041

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @adiffer 91330 wrote:

    If there is one good thing to come out of the Prop 8 vote I think it is that there are certain things we simply shouldn’t place on the ballot. I’ve learned to be much more skeptical of people with those ironing boards and clipboards seeking signatures. It’s not that we shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but more about the notion that we shouldn’t. We should self-limit. If we did that I suspect we’d produce far fewer lashes for politically motivated people to us on us. When someone puts one of those clipboards in front of me now, I imagine myself agreeing to be tied to a whipping post and ask myself if the subject on the initiative is worth it. It usually isn’t.

    I think that is the worst thing to come from Prop 8 – that or the Guv/AG’s refusal to defend the position. I oppose legalizing marijuana – but if it is passed by voters, then I expect my government to defend voters decision in court – I don’t support abrogation of responsibility just because the I might agree with the resulting policy.

    Direct Democracy does create some problems (too much ballot box budgeting), but it is almost always the result of wholesale failure of representatives doing the job of representing people (rather than special interest$) or misleading voters to get elected. It is a check – and like all checks, it sometimes swings the pendulum too far… but the alternative is oligarchical dictatorship.

  • #262017

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    @lc 91332 wrote:

    Got it. Sounds like email and FB comments. I guess a lot of people get that email, stuff, I usually don’t. Once and awhile some crank starts a mass emailing about something related to abortion, religion, or Obama’s place of birth and I never read them. I have the president of the Oregon Tea Party on my FB. He posts about 20 times a day. Same stuff. Rarely read his either. I focus a lot on the media because that’s where most people get their talking points and it’s good to know what’s being said to the mass market because that’s what sways opinions.

    I received 3 emails today from my uncle. He would be considered the fringe of the Tea Party and believes every conspricy theory that is anti Obama.

    First

    Ask Yourself This:


    Who died before they collected Social Security?

    KEEP PASSING THIS AROUND UNTIL EVERY ONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT…and GET IT!



    THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!!
    THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!!
    WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?

    Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but our employers did, too.
    It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.
    If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500 contributed to your Social Security Account…plus interest!

    Read that again.

    Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?
    We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government.

    Now as we reach the age to take it back they are calling the money we put in “AN ENTITLEMENT”.

    If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you’d have $892,919.98.

    If you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you’re 95 if you retire at age 65) and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit!

    If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

    Another thing with me…. I have two deceased husbands who died in their 50’s, (one was 51 and the other one was 59 before one percent of their social security could be drawn.

    I worked all my life and am drawing 100% on my own social security).
    Their S.S. money will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into S.S. all their lives.

    THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

    Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance!
    Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn’t make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!
    Remember Congressional benefits? — free healthcare, outrageousretirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.

    Now that’s welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments an “entitlement”?

    We’re “broke” and we can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or Homeless.
    Yet in the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile and Turkey.
    and now Pakistan……home of bin Laden, Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

    And they can’t help our own citizens in New York and New Jersey!

    They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.

    Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
    It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.

    Sad isn’t it.
    99% of people won’t have the guts to forward this. How did it get from “For The People” to:
    To The people!


    I’m in the 1% —

    I just did.

    Remember this during the upcoming elections! Vote for those who truly represent you and your family’s needs…not merely their own!

    Second email-

    The pictures won’t paste, but it’s titled “SICK SICK SICK SOCIETY” and says “What the Muslim Cult Is Accomplishing.

    WAKE UP AMERICA YOUR LOSING IT ALL.” (spelling error was in the email) It goes on the say that the Liberals are demanding cencorship of Phil Robertson, but that the same Liberal media invited Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia U. The media invited him to speak at Columbia????

    The third email had about 15 photos so I couldn’t cut and paste it either, but it says the hunters in the US are the largest army in the world, and that the real reason that there is talk about gun control on this control is because foreign governments can’t invade with so many citizen soldiers and gun control is their attemtps to gain control over us to one day invade the US.

  • #262007

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC fabricating LBJ history. According to Maddow, the media only covered the reduction in uranium production part of his State of the Union, and the War on Poverty was barely mentioned, but “highly successful.” That’s absolute bunk.

    Rachel Maddow is an extremist and a major league partisan hack. Those emails are as well. Without reading yours, Newmom, I am quite certain it contains some inaccuracies . I never get that stuff, nor do people I know send them. They are from the extremists, a minority fraction of the right wing.

  • #262018

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    Oh it’s totally filled with inaccuracies, but the people that forward it on will never believe it. It says the average US workers, who averages a salary of only 30k a year, will put almost 900k into social security. Just like emails the far left sends around and filled with false information, but the people don’t care to check the information because that would disprove their personal thoughts on the government.

  • #261957

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I think the people who believe this stuff is not huge but there are a lot of them who believe anything, just like with 9/11. They believe that was a conspiracy.

  • #262019

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    People will believe anything that aligns with what they want to believe. Emails like the ones above serve to “verify” what some people want to believe and when they receive them and read them they think to themselves that they were right all long and everyone else was wrong.

  • #262008

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    I think that’s the case with most media. People who watch Fox News probably lean right; the opposite is probably true for the other cable news channels. Most people on this site tend to lean right in at least some ways. I can’t imagine a full blown liberal enjoying or agreeing with many of the threads. There’s a better home for them.

  • #261974

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @politicopedro 91348 wrote:

    I think that is the worst thing to come from Prop 8 – that or the Guv/AG’s refusal to defend the position. I oppose legalizing marijuana – but if it is passed by voters, then I expect my government to defend voters decision in court – I don’t support abrogation of responsibility just because the I might agree with the resulting policy.

    I think you have a fair point here, but I wouldn’t want the Court to offer any method for remdiation. We already have the power to recall or vote them out in the next election. The Court needs to keep its distance from this fight or risk breaking the balance between the branches because this is a fight between the People and the other two branches.

    Quote:
    Direct Democracy does create some problems (too much ballot box budgeting), but it is almost always the result of wholesale failure of representatives doing the job of representing people (rather than special interest$) or misleading voters to get elected. It is a check – and like all checks, it sometimes swings the pendulum too far… but the alternative is oligarchical dictatorship.

    I certainly wouldn’t want to strip us of the power to enact initiatives. We obviously DO need it as a check. It’s just that as a check we should properly expect the branch BEING checked to fight back. They do with each other due to the way we divide government power, so the intiative process basically inserts us as a fourth branch. They ARE going to fight us if we are checking them (initiative votes)… and then we do what we should in the next office election where we DON’T act as the fourth branch. Zap!

  • #261975

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.

    —-Bertrand Russel, Sceptical Essays (1928), “Dreams and Facts”

    One of the things I like about the internet and social media is that the cloud of flies gets disturbed now and then by alien ideas. People DO try to maintain their bubbles of ignorance, but it’s hard to do as we become more and more connected. I see these conspiracy emails as attempts to innoculate believers against alien ideas by flooding their attention, but I’m not convinced they are succeeding.

  • #262042

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @adiffer 91378 wrote:

    I think you have a fair point here, but I wouldn’t want the Court to offer any method for remdiation. We already have the power to recall or vote them out in the next election. The Court needs to keep its distance from this fight or risk breaking the balance between the branches because this is a fight between the People and the other two branches.[/quote]
    I don’t it that way – SCOTUS failed to rule on the issue, relying on simply a procedural flimflam to avoid it. Another failure.

    Quote:
    I certainly wouldn’t want to strip us of the power to enact initiatives. We obviously DO need it as a check. It’s just that as a check we should properly expect the branch BEING checked to fight back. They do with each other due to the way we divide government power, so the intiative process basically inserts us as a fourth branch. They ARE going to fight us if we are checking them (initiative votes)… and then we do what we should in the next office election where we DON’T act as the fourth branch. Zap!

    We aren’t the forth, fifth or sixth branch – they are ALL subject to US (the voters) that is the whole purpose of self-governence. We set up “systems” (constitutions, elections, etc) to allow representatives to act on our behalf… (that’s why the prosecution is “The People”, why the Sens, Congs,Asses, are Representatives). When they FAIL, direct democracy allows us to “go over their heads” to enact laws or change the Constitution.

  • #261976

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Sometimes the flimflam is the best way to keep the balance. I understand your concern with how they did it, but I’ve seen this kind of punting so often I think it is part of the system… and has to be. [It has worked for and against things I’ve supported, so this isn’t about just this one case.]

    We are both the fourth branch AND the sovereigns to which they are all subject. When we insert ourselves directly through the initiative process into a system of divided government, we act as legislators and bypass the original legislative branch. In practice, we try to trump the legislature. We are obviously the sovereigns and they represent us, but the initiative process doesn’t really create a form of direct democracy. It is still subject to the structures of our divided, constitutional government and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.