So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

@jcboy,

Quote:

He chastised those churches that “have fallen into the trap of being politically correct, under the disguise of tolerance.”

Franklin Graham much prefers those churches that are brazenly intolerant, and that actively promote anti-gay, anti-black, and anti-Semitic attitudes, as he does, under the guise of religious beliefs.

He likes the way his church sanctions bigotry, and anyone who attacks them for doing that, including other Christians, is being "anti-Christian" according to him.

People like Graham use the terms "politically correct" or "PC" as code words, to demean and disparage others who may be genuinely concerned about the need for tolerance and the need to reduce hatred between groups. He's not concerned about hatred, or it's consequences, as long as it doesn't affect his group--but, when it does affect his group, this hypocrite declares it a “religious war against Christians and the biblical truths [they] stand for.”, and suddenly he doesn't want that sort of hatred tolerated.

Graham likes to dish it out, but not to be on the receiving end of it. You really can't have it both ways. What he sows is also what he reaps.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

one-upmanship

In Izzys eyes it is.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

If you feel you are being libeled then make use of the report post button or use the Contact us link to make your case to the site managers.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

I get a thumbs down for an undeniable fact. Weather today: Extremely hypocritical out.

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

Quote:

If you feel you are being libeled then make use of the report post button or use the Contact us link to make your case to the site managers.

Oh yes, I am sure that will do any good as they can not be unaware of both Izzy and Firefly willingness over the years to turn to libel as a tool in their toolbox.

An there is no feel about it, as a false claim such as I had posted the web addresses of child porn sites is on it face a libel under any meaning of the word libel.

2 Replies

And, while everyone was busy taking sides, that doesn't appear to have affected the Robertsons--they're quite happy with A & E, and actually never said anything to suggest otherwise during this entire episode.

Quote:

'Duck Dynasty': Robertson family members ready to 'move on'
By Patrick Kevin Day
January 1, 2014

Willie and Korie Robertson, two of the stars of A&E's "Duck Dynasty" show appeared on Fox News' New Year's Eve special, "All American New Year," and appeared ready to forgive and forget the show's recent controversy as the clock ticked toward 2014.

"We're just glad to be back to work," Willie Robertson told Fox News hosts Bill Hemmer and Elisabeth Hasselbeck during an interview conducted via satellite from Steamboat Springs, Colo.

"A&E and us are fine," he continued. "The Robertsons, we're looking forward to getting back to making some funny shows. And it's a new year, so we are ready to break in a new year and start it all over again."

For anyone in a media blackout zone over the holidays, A&E's top-rated reality series became the focal point of a major controversy when Robertson family patriarch Phil Robertson was suspended from the series after a magazine published comments he made criticizing gay marriage and praising the pre-civil rights South.

Fans of the series, which drew 11.77 million viewers for its most recent season premiere, making it the highest-rated cable nonfiction series ever, were outraged and lobbied A&E to reverse its decision. A&E eventually reinsated the elder Robertson on Friday after a nine-day suspension, which means he didn't miss any filming for the series.

"We are ready to move on," Willie Robertson, one of Phil's sons, said. "I think we all learned a lot and we are just ready to move on and the family is happy and we are ready to go."

Following Phil Roberson's suspension, members of the Robertson family released a statement claiming they didn't know how to continue with the show without Phil. Many people speculated that the Robertsons could take their reality show act to another channel. But now that A&E has lifted Phil's suspension, it appears everything is OK between the two camps.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-duck-dynasty-robertson-family-members-ready-to-move-on-20140101,0,3079116.story#ixzz2pBXuc8dX

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I guess you aren't as smart as I gave you credit for.

My mistake. Carry on with the feeding frenzy, Bill.

1 Reply

It's actually very interesting how we see a microcosm of Phil and A&E in this very thread. We can't discuss Phil's comments about homosexuals without divorcing them from his religion, his job, his history, etc just like people can't consider others' opinions without going off on tangents about their posts on other topics, their personal lives, etc. I'm sure A&E and IAC/InterActiveCorp (Justine Sacco's employer) would be very happy to have everyone discuss the events in question without drawing them into it but since that's not going to happen they have to take a stand in a controversy that they didn't start and can't win.

Back to Phil, I find his comments repulsive, but (1) he's not in a position of power where his bigotry will harm anyone and (2) A&E is not going to let any of that get on the air to sully their product. He's just another bigot and I'm sure plenty of those appear on TV all the time. Pretty much for the same reasons, I wouldn't have called for Sacco's firing. Sure, she's clearly got some problems, but if I was satisfied with her work before this, I would consider this a teachable moment. Based on her apology she's likely redeemable.

I guess I find those yelling so loudly in support of Phil but staying mostly silent on Justine (Fox news for example) to be complete hypocrites. I consider Phil's run of the mill "Christian" bigotry to be much worse than Justine's privileged, cultural ignorance but the lack of voices defending her "free speech" is very noticeable compared to those proposing sainthood for Phil.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

he's not in a position of power where his bigotry will harm anyone

the promoters of speech bans dont care a lick what power the speaker has or does not have. According to them the harm is in the words reaching the ears of others, a view that is predicated on the fear that those bad words will cause bad ideas to be formed in others where they did not previously exist. I say that if the promoters are so sure that the ideas are bad ideas that others freedoms must be curtailed to prevent the ideas from spreading then they must also be such obvious bad ideas that they would be rejected in free debate, so the loss of freedom is not necessary and thus should not happen.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Oh yes, I am sure that will do any good as they can not be unaware of both Izzy and Firefly willingness over the years to turn to libel as a tool in their toolbox.

Stop pretending to be the injured party. Your victim act is nothing more than a phony display of indignation, given your penchant for constantly making false statements about me--none of which are ever supported by a link or direct quote from anything I've actually said.

This is the latest example, a statement you made in this thread a few pages back.

Quote:

Firefly have even gone to the point of putting keys words into her own postings so she could then claim that a google search would find my comments on computer security and therefore aid pedophiles.

That's a blatant untruth, and a completely unsupportable accusation, BillRM, of the sort you'd call "libel". So why do you do that sort of thing?

It's also a paranoid and crazy statement. Now you think you're being entrapped by alleged "key words" I put into my postings so that a Google search would come up with posts where you gave security tips for those who want to download child pornography? Laughing

Whatever Google links exist between you and child pornography collectors would come directly from your own posts, on several child pornography threads, where you've expounded, at length, on the issue of computer security to protect your hard drive from government access. And curiously, it's mainly on child pornography threads where you've handed out this "helpful" advice, along with information about the darknet. And yes, the advice you handed out would be helpful to pedophiles who would want to conceal their illegal activities from the government. If you didn't want it seen that way, why would you explicitly dispense this info in more than one thread on child pornography?

I repeat what I said before...

The more you try to explain why people draw the wrong conclusions about you, whether it's other posters at A2K, or those people in the park, the worse you sound because you're so clearly rationalizing and denying the behaviors, and opinions, and information, all supplied by you, that other people are basing their conclusions on.

You always see yourself as the innocent persecuted party, you have no idea how you impress other people, and consequently, you take no responsibility for the provocations you instigate or the image of yourself you project. You're the one responsible for your own reputation at A2K, try as you might to blame it on other people, because all the information it's based on came directly from you. You have no idea how much your comments reveal about you, apart from what you intend. And you never know when to shut up, so you always dig yourself in deeper.

You're alleged case for "libel" is laughable.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

And, while everyone was busy taking sides, that doesn't appear to have affected the Robertsons--they're quite happy with A & E, and actually never said anything to suggest otherwise during this entire episode.

if you ignore that they would rather kill the show then comply with A&E demands. Drunk

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

... the promoters of speech bans dont care a lick what power the speaker has or does not have.

I do. If someone who supervises a dozen workers is a bigot then they expose the company to lawsuits and could easily be damaging the company's performance by not effectively making use of the resources available and not respecting my employees. Phil is a very successful business man, but I would never hire him to run my business. I'd buy from him, sell to him, not care at all about who he does business with, but his potential to negatively impact my business would preclude me from hiring him.

1 Reply

@engineer,

you do recall the impassioned demands that I be barred from A2K solely because of my arguing that we should grant full sexual freedom at 15 years age, as well the claims that if my customers knew that I supported this position then my restaurant would die??? Maybe my customers are more in favor of free speech and the free flow ideas than that but I surely dont want to have to test that theory. I do think that free speech is something that is so important that we need to make a stand for it, and I further think that we need to go the extra mile to tolerate offensive speech and that when we reach the end of that tolerance that we condemn the idea, we should not punish the one who gave voice to the idea. I grant that legal liability would be a valid reason to not hire Phil, but to me what this speaks to is our broken justice system, there is no way that offensive speech should be liable, the claimant should need to prove acts that caused harm, and hurting ears does not make the grade.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

"teachable moment" is elitist and condescending...not to mention the one who is sure that they know best is often wrong. there should be no demand the the speaker of offensive ideas recant or reform, there should be no public shamming of the speaker. What should happen is that the inferior idea is shown up as the inferior idea by way of the arguing of a better idea. A&E should never have fired Phil, what they should have said is "he does not speak for us, we dont believe what he believes, we believe XYZ and this is why......."

3 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

I'm sure A&E and IAC/InterActiveCorp (Justine Sacco's employer) would be very happy to have everyone discuss the events in question without drawing them into it but since that's not going to happen they have to take a stand in a controversy that they didn't start and can't win.

I think that's true.

But there is also good reason for employers, like A & E, who also have a reputation to protect, and a diverse viewing audience, to not want their brand sullied by one employee's remarks. And it's up to employers, as private entities, to determine what sorts of things constitute "sullying'. If Phil Robertson's show was on a Christian owned and themed cable network, his remarks might not have bothered his employers at all.

I think the firings of Dean, Bashir, and Baldwin, were unnecessary, but Food Network and MSNBC felt otherwise. I never watched Dean's show but I did watch both Bashir and Baldwin, and liked both of their shows. But, simply as the viewer/consumer of a network's programming, I feel I have no legitimate right to demand who they put on the air, or keep on the air. I only have the right to watch or not watch what's already on the air. It would never occur to me to protest MSNBC's firing of Bashir and Baldwin by organizing campaigns to boycott the network in order to bully them into re-hiring both of them. As a consumer, of a network's programming, I have no right to coerce them into retaining an employee they consider a liability.

The silence about Justine may simply reflect the fact that others, like me, simply acknowledge the rights of employers to make such firings. Most of the noise in Robertson's case, opposing his "suspension", came from right-wing religious groups, and politicians, who were the ones that made it all about his religion, rather than the man's bigotry, and offensive comments about several groups, and these are the same people who constantly bash the "liberal media" and the situation with Robertson just gave them a high-profile excuse to jump on their usual bandwagon again.

So those most loudly supporting Phil wouldn't be making any noise if they weren't able to focus it on his religion, and that's why they wouldn't be interested in speaking up about Justine. It's not about principle for them, it's about promoting their own religious self-interests and bashing their usual media targets.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You know what you posted, and if it wasn't a link to a child pornography site you certainly indicated that it was a step in the right direction. Maybe you were bullshitting, but you certainly thought that knowing your way around the Darknet gave you a certain cachet. You were mistaken as always, and now you're trying to backtrack, and you've only got yourself to blame.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Firefly: Stop pretending to be the injured party. Your victim act is nothing more than a phony display of indignation. I wanna express my phony display of indignation.

After all the lies I spread about you, after supporting that scumbag Izzy, after confirming to all that I am a scumbag myself, you have a lot of nerve, Bill, trying to prevent me from whining and moaning about poor little ole me.

I'm the aggrieved party here and I am pretty sure, from all the evidence I have collected - izzy told me - you are none other than George Zimmerman.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

if you ignore that they would rather kill the show then comply with A&E demands.

The Robertson' never threatened to kill the show rather than comply with A & E--they were very careful not to do that.

The Robertson sons issued only one statement, a vague and ambiguous statement that they "couldn't imagine" doing the show without papa--but they never said they wouldn't do it without him. "Couldn't imagine doing it without him" might simply mean it might feel weird not to have him working with them on the show. They never made any statement that indicated they refused to do the show without him.

And Phil Robertson never protested his suspension.

The Robertsons want this show, they wanted to keep this show, and they went along with whatever A & E did to deal with damage control and keep this show viable. The "suspension" was all about buying time to do damage control, and the Robertsons, particularly Phil, did nothing to further jeopardize their relationship with A & E, which is why they did nothing to further turn up the heat, and they went along with the way A & E was handling it.

These people like making money, and they like the way the family business has grown since they've been on Duck Dynasty, and they want to keep it that way. They weren't about to rock that boat, which is why the outrage and protests didn't come from them.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

But, simply as the viewer/consumer of a network's programming, I feel I have no legitimate right to demand who they put on the air, or keep on the air.

so in the interest of consistency you also feel powerless to object to McD's paying poverty wages in any other way than refusing to eat there....correct?

The labor movement never would have gotten off the ground, been able to improve working conditions, with a nation of "it is not my concern" Fireflies.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Izzy: You know what you posted, and if it wasn't a link to a child pornography site you certainly indicated that it was a step in the right direction. Maybe you were bullshitting, but you certainly thought that knowing your way around the Darknet gave you a certain cachet. You were mistaken as always, and now you're trying to backtrack, and you've only got yourself to blame.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Amazing! Izzy comes out with an admission that he was lying. He knew he was lying. He had no proof whatsoever to back his innuendo, his relentless innuendo. And Firefly had none either. She just backed Izzy's lies.

What's worse, they both knew they were lying, two slimy "red baiters" at work.

And I hope that will be a good lesson for you, Bill, you've got no one to blame but yourself for Izzy and Firefly to jump to completely ludicrous conclusions based on nothing more than their desire to get you.

0 Replies

So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know