Upset about Duck Dynasty and Phil being Suspended Contact A&E

There are about a half dozen major media giants that control most of what you see on TV, cable and radio: Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Univesal, Disney and News Corp.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...trol-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read

The programming, the politcal and religious slant of what you see if dictated by the people at the top, not generally the actors, the newsanchors and others that are visible to the eye. The men behind the curtain decide what is edited, what is shown. These are the corporate directors, sudio chiefs, producors, directors, news editors and writers.

So who are the Christians in charge? The only media outlet actually sympathetic to Christians and more conservative views is News Corp ran by Rupert Murdoch. He jokingly said that, "I am a Christian, but my wife is a Catholic." As a direct result, Fox News and the National Geographic Channel under his control are some of the few shows that are not so overwhelmingly liberal. The clever people who run the media are very good at what they do. They only need to showcase their agenda 80 or 90% of the time to appear open minded.

Now you don't have to believe a word I say. Just look at what they say about themselves:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jews-in-the-media-hollywood/

 

You underestimate the number of businesses who support wholesomeness and values.

Most businesses don't bend over for the gays.

And apparently he was hardly ever on the show, so I'm sure he could care less if he was offered another.... which they will be.

 

And you are a fool if you think that companies will choose family value over profits. Tell me how living in Disneyworld is. Are you saying the only people who family values are Christians? Mind you that Divorce rates for Christians are in the high 50% rates.

 

Not really. Friends and family of only 3% doesn't turn out to be as big a number as you wish it were.

Then you have to factor in all those friends and family who don't support them.

You should probably be glad they aren't the authentic kind of Christians who actually follow the Bible.
Instead of pushing it.


So which is it... you said your family is done with the show... and now you say she is apologizing for watching it?

 

Who are you talking to?

 

Very few of those things cost taxpayers anything. But as it pertains to those that do, I guess as long as we excuse gay people from having to pay those benefits for straight couples, I'm totally cool with you not having to pay them for gay people.

 

If you think "us people" condemn homophobic bigotry just for the sake of "complaining about it" then you need to pick up a history book and understand how bad life has been for LGBT individuals not only in this country but around the world. The attitude displayed by his hateful comments is the same attitude that we are trying to get rid of because of the damage it inflicts on people's lives. I condemn bigotry and hate not for the sake of complaining, but for the sake of what is right.

 

I've never seen such a case where homosexual relationships have been valued above heterosexual relationships in any religion/culture, and I actually studied Socio-Anthropology and mythology. Maybe universities are beginning to teach this sort of nonsense now, because there's a progressive agenda to push homosexuality for whatever reason, but I had never read of such a case. He wasn't calling anyone, in particular, a sinner. He was describing what was a sin, to him and according to the Bible and his beliefs.

The intolerance is from that on the Left, who rejects his right to free speech, his honesty and his religious beliefs. They do everything they possibly can to get their socio-political "enemies" (as described by Obama) shut down.

 

Rescue my buddy? I was unaware of any "buddy" of mine requiring rescuing. Your ignorance of the truth is all that's needed for my victory.

 

Yes actually they do. Go read post #771 page 78 in this thread. I explained a few of the direct and indirect costs to the citizens of this country. That same line of thought can be applied to the majority of the benefits of marriage.

However, as you said... I wouldn't have a problem giving them any of the rights of marriage that was not subsidized either directly or indirectly by the taxpayer. That list is very short. It may include being able to visit your partner in a hospital ... but other than that there's not too much that isn't subsidized by the rest of the populace either directly or indirectly.

Would that be acceptable to homosexuals? Absolutely not because this is not an issue of equality or even marriage... this is an issue of MONEY. They want the BENEFITS that come with marriage. You could offer them all of the benefits that were not monetary and they would reject it. Because at the end of the day, this is about money. They want other people to subsidize their deranged, abhorrent, derelict lifestyle.

 

And you want to people to subsidize yours. After all, deranged, abhorrent, and derelict are simply matters of opinion. If your argument is that you don't like your tax money going to stuff you don't like, get in line. You are just one of millions in that regard. But who I marry, in and of itself, is none of your business. Don't like the benefits I get? Take it up with those providing the benefits.

 

Why should homosexuals accept a lesser form of marriage? The 14th amendment states that such setup is unacceptable. The rest of your rant is just mindless right-wing projecting.

 

Agreed. The idea that even one cent of my taxes is going to subsidize the right-wing lifestyle is completely nauseating to me, but I have no say in where me tax money goes.

 

I'm asking you whether a tiny number of corporate media poobahs ought to decide which opinions are expressed? I'm sure you are aware of the tremendous power of these media conglomerates.

 

Here's one who believes everything he's told, because he's an ignorant sheep that lives under a rock. He goes about his day inflating his ego by demeaning others, while holding steadfast to the crumbling arguments that have been debunked, questioned by authoritative voices and hold no grounds in reality or even the scientific method.

If you really want to get into an argument about global warming or evolution, I'd be happy to engage you. I've done so a million times before with other like-minded liberals. I would, however, prefer to do it elsewhere in another thread (though for some, it will end up becoming monotonous, since we've been down that road before). So, go ahead and create said thread and I shall follow you over there. Please remember to bring your A game, if you have one... and not just pejorative comments and insults.

 

I could list tons of areas where I dislike my money going (in theory, since we are not billed for each thing and we spend far more than the people are taxed). But that has nothing to do with the morality of said things or whether said things should be legal. The arguments are separate as I have no control over where the morons spend my money. I think the child tax credit is bullshiite. But I don't think having kids is immoral and I'm not for banning them because of tax giveaways to the breeders.

 

Alec Baldwin: fired for using gay slurs. Not a peep from the right.

Martin Bashir: forced out over nasty comments he made directed at conservative Sara Palin. Not a peep from the right.

Phil Robertson: suspended for comments A&E considers inappropriate. "OMGZ, liberals are killing free speech!"

 

Phil made statements not in anger like Baldwin to intentionally hurt someone, and the same as Bashir to slander someone, but a statement of his faith with scripture for ref...

I would say that you need to get a life..but really, you need to get a conscience with the distortion you post!

 

It's no more discrimination than someone who is not disabled that does not qualify for disability.

Homosexuals are INCAPABLE of providing the benefit that we are paying for in and of themselves, therefore, just like someone who is not disabled does not qualify for disability... they do not qualify for marriage benefits.

 

That's exactly what we're doing. And we have to explain to people like yourself why homosexuals don't qualify. Which is exactly what I'm doing.

And don't worry, we've won this argument with the populace 33 out of 36 times with the American populace and only lost the Supreme Court argument one time with a 5-4 vote. Just wait until we get a real conservative back on the bench and we take that vote again.

We're absolutely fighting it in the legislative arena. But you were the one who wanted someone to explain to you why they don't qualify for benefits. So I did. You can't refute my argument so you simply say "get in line". Which is fine. But when we get back in power, that's exactly what we're going to say to the homosexuals who start crying again... Get in line.

 

Old and sterile couples are INCAPABLE of providing a benefit that we are paying for in and of themselves, therefore, just like someone who is not disabled does not qualify for disability... They do not qualify for marriage benefits.

Let me anticipate your reply: the fact that it's too expensive to test the fertility of straight couples does NOT give states right to exclude homosexual couples. That is discrimination. Either provide the same benefits to everyone, or to no one. Equal protection per the constitution of the United States.

 

And you have every right to attempt to fight against those dumbass uses of your money. And in doing so, you would probably need to explain why to liberals who call you names and say you don't have a right to do so.

 

You're not "anticipating" it. You're repeating what I've already told you and that you couldn't refute. But I'll explain it to you again so everybody can see why you're wrong.


It's actually irrelevant. Think about the process. If we want to promote the idea of procreation (or the creation of new revenue streams for society) there is only one group that, in and of themselves, are capable of procreation. That group is heterosexuals. Now, we know that some heterosexuals are not willing or able to procreate. So there are basically three options. The only way to know if someone is able and willing to produce a child is to test them. So we would have to test every single married couple every year or 6 months or so to determine if they're still willing and able to have a child. That process however is extremely expensive. It's costly, inefficient and ultimately ineffective. So that's simply not feasible. That leaves us with really only two options. Either we do not provide benefits to ANYONE because we can't know who is willing and who is not willing to produce children. Or we provide benefits to the entire group of people who have the POTENTIAL for procreation (heterosexuals) and just take the hit on the people who may be unwilling or unable to procreate.

Rather than not provide benefits to anyone, we chose to provide them to the entire group. The reason homosexuals do not receive the benefits is because, in and of themselves, they are INCAPABLE of providing the benefit of procreation. Therefore we know there is absolutely no reason to subsidize them. It's simply a waste of money.


At BEST you have an argument as to why certain (or all) heterosexuals should not receive marriage benefits (which I would agree with). But you have ABSOLUTELY no justification WHATSOEVER as to why homosexuals should receive those benefits.

 

Let us look at what he actually said:
"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."

That is just one of his many bigoted remarks.

And just for fun, here is the Pope vs. Phil
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/phil-robertson-pope-francis_n_4481047.html

You call that the same? Ha.

 

Actually I refuted your argument quite easily and the Supreme Court agreed with me. The idea of biting the bullet and only excluding homosexual couples is discriminatory to its very core. It doesn't need debunking, it's obviously wrong and unconstitutional.

Homosexual (and married heterosexual) couples who adopt provide the tremendous benefit of taking a formerly unwanted child into their home, yet only the heterosexual couple was previously able to benefit from it. Now we're really discriminating. Gay women should they choose, through artificial insemination, are capable of producing biological children. No benefits for them? Even though many straight couples do this all the time and get subsidies for it?

The right will twist themselves into pretzels trying to defend the discriminatory policies against gay marriage, but none of their arguments are valid.