Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: When did damn_registrars get his lobotomy? 23

Journal by smitty_one_each
While the point about A&E being private property is well-taken, I'd like to challenge d_r, who referred to Phil's remarks as a "homophobic rant" in his JE, to look at what was actually said and justify either adjective:

Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong... Sin becomes fine. 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 then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: "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."
And if that wasn't explicit enough, the "Duck Commander" added: "It seems like, to me, a vagina--as a man--would be more desirable than a man's anus. 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.

To call these remarks either homophobic OR a rant is to be either lobotomized or just an abject, lying fool. I fail to grasp how any sober, mature, honest person, even if not in agreement, can characterize the fauxtrage of d_r and ilk as anything other than "Utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist:

". . .this is the level of punitive [political correctness], utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."

All I can say, d_r, is: you GO, girl!

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When did damn_registrars get his lobotomy?

Comments Filter:
  • 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.

    Right in those lines he shows that he is preaching discrimination based on lack of understanding. Homosexuality does not lead to those things. Indeed the best known polygamous societies in particular have also preached homophobia.

    Why, if you are supposed to be preaching for a religion (claiming to be) interested in love, are you supporting a message of hate? And would Jesus support you writing a JE that attacks me in its very subject line? You could have attacked the statement in your subject but

    • by Arker (91948)

      "However, being as there is "Duck Dynasty" merchandise being sold everywhere now, and plenty of like-minded people who support his homophobic stance, there is a fair chance that this will produce more, not less, revenue for the family."

      There is also the Streisand affect, as well as the natural resistance to being told what to think and what thoughts you are allowed to say or not.

      I think this is a real danger with all political correctness, whether private or public. And I am afraid I cannot agree that A

      • And I am afraid I cannot agree that A&E is a fully private entity.

        if we were talking about an over-the-air broadcast network I would say there is good reason to say that. However being as A&E is a cable network, they are under far less regulation on what they do.

        Unfortunately we live in a world where my pocket is constantly being picked in order to broadcast 'public service announcements' to preach stuff at me that I disagree with and find offensive. A world where television broadcasters are certainly regulated, directly and indirectly, by the government.

        Granted, I don't watch much cable myself, and when I do it's usually on DVR so I'm skipping the commercials and PSAs anyways. However on the occasions when I do watch live TV I can't recall a time I have ever seen a PSA on cable, unless you count Red Cross fundraisers (specifically for Katrina or 9/11) as

        • by Arker (91948)

          "If I were to walk into Wal-Mart and start shouting out racist epithets or other inflammatory language, I can expect them to throw me out of their store. They have that right as the owners of private property, just as I could throw someone out of my own home if they said such a thing or otherwise offended me."

          Sure, if you are shouting and creating a disturbance that would make sense, regardless of what exactly you were shouting. And if you were in MY store being aggressive/insulting to other customers or em

    • Why, if you are supposed to be preaching for a religion (claiming to be) interested in love, are you supporting a message of hate?

      Hate whom, specifically? We're seeing somebody disagree with behavior, and encounter "Utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist" behavior. That the media justifies the swarming behavior offers you cover to call this "homophobic" (I see no fear afoot here) and a "rant" (whatever). You haven't justified either adjective.
      My thought is that the Robertson clan is probably out of material (I've never watched the show) and this is probably the way they part company with A&E.
      Phil is correct; you are not.

      • Why, if you are supposed to be preaching for a religion (claiming to be) interested in love, are you supporting a message of hate?

        Hate whom, specifically?

        You are endorsing a homophobic rant. The rant itself is a message of hate; particularly when voiced in the way it was, presenting the "slippery slope" line and all.

        We're seeing somebody disagree with behavior, and encounter "Utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist" behavior.

        Except that Stalin himself was deeply opposed to homosexuality and sent them to the gulags [wikipedia.org]:

        In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.

        So as usual, the fascists / Stalinists are from the right and not the left.

        That the media justifies the swarming behavior

        Think (I know, not easy for you these days, especially in this kind of scenario) of what would happen if you walked into your local Wal-Mart and started shouting out racist epit

        • It would help considerably if you justified the "phobia" you see. Because there isn't any. You're crapflooding with the worst of them.
  • And you post the same bigoted drivel, so you aren't expected to understand.

    But, the ratings are up. It made the front page and has the whole internet aflutter. Mission accomplished. All is well in the garden. And you and d_r remain stuck in the sand trap of the superfluous that keeps the power structure afloat.

    Most definitely, you go, girls! You should fill in the vacant time slot with this stuff.

    Fuck your hate [blogspot.com].

    • But, the ratings are up. It made the front page and has the whole internet aflutter. Mission accomplished. All is well in the garden.

      If you would read my comments you would have noticed that I already suggested that possibility...

      And you and d_r remain stuck in the sand trap of the superfluous that keeps the power structure afloat.

      ... but that would be asking too much of you.

  • It's my goal to make it to the end of the year without knowing what a "duck dynasty" is. I think it's a TV thing, but that's as far as I know.

    It's December 21st, and I'm doing pretty well.

    I think it means I'm really old when I start taking great pride in being blissfully unaware of the important cultural issues of the day.

    And, I'm pretty sure that all the anti-homosexual references in the New Testament are added by Paul, who was trying to twist the teachings of Jesus to fit his own personal/political agend

    • I've never watched it, either, but it's this bayou family which has made a lot of money on duck calls, while still keeping their CCR feel.

      And, I'm pretty sure that all the anti-homosexual references in the New Testament are added by Paul, who was trying to twist the teachings of Jesus to fit his own personal/political agenda.

      That's a theory, but ignores the fact that the New Testament merely restates the Old Testament for a Hellenistic setting. There isn't a single fresh idea in the New; it all flows clearly from the Old. All of it.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        I've never watched it, either, but it's this...

        La la la la, I can't hear you!.

        Seriously, I stopped reading when I saw that you were about to tell me about duck dynasty.

        Not going to do it. We're arguing about something stupid while a surveillance state is being set up to take away our privacy forever.

        I don't care what your politics are. If you're against the government doing surveillance on hundreds of millions of Americans without warrants, we are on the same side. There is no other issue. No other pro

        • by PopeRatzo (965947)

          Oh, and that string of presidents who should be shamed, defamed, blamed and have their presidential libraries torn down to make basketball courts includes Ronald Wilson Reagan who was the first to throw a ton of money at the intelligence/technology/corporate/police state apparatus. He wasn't the first one to spy on Americans who were not suspected of any crime, but he was the one to turn it into a big money pot and then turn the corporate spooks loose to do whatever they want.

          • All I can tell you is that governments are going to spy. At issue here is how, in the Information Age, we define privacy and the individual/state dividing line. Hint: we're on a course toward unlimited government.

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Working...