I guess this Duck Dynasty thing is a big deal...

I'm still waiting for you to have the courage to speak your mind. So, please give us your opinion as to when you think a life begins.

 

In your case... Never?

 

Like I said before, you're a spineless wimp. Have you no courage at all?

 

I have to ask, is it even possible to be intolerant of intolerance? That sees to be the argument I keep hearing. Because then it is also has to be possible to be intolerant of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance.... Why would anyone think that makes a lick of sense?

 

Thanks for your opinion and your intolerance of my courage to speak my mind.

 

Examples? OK...just one (1) example of anything Phil Robertson said that was "racist" or "bigoted". You throw those labels around because they agree with the narrative you maintain in your diseased brain, but they don't have any basis in reality.

You're being conspicuously slilent...could it be that your views place the "rights" of the LBGT community above those of heterosexual families raising young children?

Could it be that you believe the teaching of alternative lifestyles should be part of the Public School curriculum?

Please Joe...grace us with your views on the subject. We're dying to hear...

 

So you are saying that you are intolerant of our intolerance of your intolerance. There is an easy fix to that. You need to learn to be tolerant of others. That does not seem to be so hard for the right. I wonder why it is so difficult for the left.

 

Where we differ is in seeing his remarks in GQ as intolerant compared to the hate and slurs that has been sent his way for saying it.

As far as I read in stories about that article, he was not calling gays bad names, spewing hate towards them, calling for their arrest or death or anything else. Seems to me that he said that he didn't understand it and that it was contrary to his religious beliefs. And since, I believe he has added that he does not accept it but it is not for him to treat them poorly because of it. That is up to his God.

As I said before, being tolerant does not mean he has to accept or embrace being gay as being proper according to his personal beliefs. Just as those that disagree with him could be tolerant of his beliefs without accepting or embracing them...and without shouting them down, spewing hateful names and slurs and other things I have seen and read since the story came out.

 

View attachment 2178 ​

 

I have much less respect for Cracker Barrel for bowing to pressure from GLAAD but then flip-flopping than I have for Phil Robertson for standing up for his beliefs.


Cracker Barrel: We screwed up big time

December 22, 2013

“We were flat out wrong."

That’s the message Cracker Barrel is sending to enraged customers after the restaurant chain removed Duck Dynasty items from its stores over fears it might offend people.

“Our intent was to avoid offending but that’s just what we’ve done,” Cracker Barrel said in a statement posted on its Facebook page. “You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings.”

One of those customers was Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. He said his family has eaten in nearly every Cracker Barrel in the country.

“Cracker Barrel must be off their rocker,” he said in a statement to Fox News. “For Cracker Barrel to take the bait of an organization like GLAAD, which has led the attack on Phil Robertson, they are betraying the values of the vast majority of their customers.”

The restaurant chain known for its country cooking admitted they were wrong and not only offered an apology, but ordered Duck Dynasty products be returned to their stores immediately.

“Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores,” Cracker Barrel stated. “And, we apologize for offending you.”

Cracker Barrel took action on Friday after Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson was indefinitely suspended from the popular A&E show for making comments the network found offensive to homosexuals.

Workers were instructed to remove all merchandise that featured Robertson, local reports alleged.

The outrage and condemnation from loyal Cracker Barrel customers was swift. Thousands posted messages on Facebook vowing to eat their biscuits and country fried steak somewhere else.

Among those who took offense was former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

“I have no respect for a company that bows to the slightest pressure from the politically correct,” Huckabee wrote on Facebook.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/22/cracker-barrel-screwed-up-big-time/?intcmp=trending

 

I think anytime you're calling being gay sinful and equating it to bestiality, you are being straight up intolerant and pretty damn ignorant. Does this old coot think heterosexuals never have anal sex? He is probably a nice enough guy but like most rednecks, he is as naive as hell and passing judgement from a place of sheer ignorance.

A & E network has given Duck Dynasty dad Phil Robertson an indefinite suspension for his comments about homosexuality in a GQ January issue story about the family. The comment that sparked controversy, and earned the Duck dad his suspension, was an answer to the question, "What, in your mind, is sinful?" To which Robertson said: "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." Robertson also questioned the logic of same-sex attraction, saying, "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man's anus."

Read More http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/20...sons-indefinite-suspension.html#ixzz2oF8ZQsAa

 

I understand that but I disagree that equating being gay to bestiality isn't intolerant. I never figured out why these country bumpkin types focus on sex when they think about gays. It just seems to me that when I think about two people in a relationship, I do not immediately start imagining them in bed and try to figure out how they might be having sex. Why does how they have sex matter to anyone but them? Why must people like Robertson go straight for that imagery? I'll tell you why, IGNORANCE!

 

Just curious but have you read that A&E blessed the interview when it was given? They were right there in the room with them and made no attempt to change a thing!

 

How many of you agree with Robertson's opinion that blacks were better off before civil rights? You've all pretty much ignored that comment. Do you agree that civil rights was a bad thing for blacks?

 

Blessed the article? What the hell does that mean? What would they have "changed" about the article.

 

Let's try to equate this to comments you've previously made. For instance, I'm tolerant of you saying that you watched a girl get raped, but did nothing to stop it even though I believe you were wrong for taking no action. I'm also tolerant of you calling for the State House in Wisconsin to be burned down even though I vehemently disagree with you. You see, I'm tolerant of your right to believe what you want (or to not take action as the case may be), but I'm intolerant of your sheer stupidity.

So, in summary, I'm:

TOLERANT: Of your right to be stupid.

INTOLERANT: Of your stupidity.

 

UHM!! It got published as they witnessed it without their objection - PRIOR to the liberal flap.

 

Funny, but I did not see where he compared pre/post civil rights blacks better/worse off. He said they were happy and not accusatory to the whites. Of course you and your liberal friends would twist his words as far as possible to your advantage. I mean Biden has slammed both Indian and Black peoples and you still elected him VP. Does that mean you and your ilk are anti-Black and anti-Indian?

 

He also equates both to drunkenness, greed, adultery, promiscuity, (and I am sure pre-marital sex and living in sin and a number of other things etc) etc, and equates all of those to each other. To his beliefs, they are all sins and will keep you from Heaven. I am sure he would believe I am going to hell just as much any homosexual. So?

He is not calling for any of those people doing what he considers sins to be persecuted or hated or anything else.

 

As far as his words about blacks he saw being happy? If he was in the fields working alongside them, then that is his experience. Racist? I don't see it. At most a limited world view or personal perspective.