jerk

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think that is going to happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4485646.html

you don't think what is going to happen?

[geeker2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l4JpI0nwf8

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by geeker2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l4JpI0nwf8

Ouch....

Was that RIOT walking out at the end?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you don't think what is going to happen?

I don't think the network is going to part ways.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think the network is going to part ways.

i don't recall anyone saying they were. i know some right wing nutjobs were screaming about the suspension, but i don't think anyone said the guy was fired.

i also find it interesting that sarah palin was one of the people blathering about it, not long after calling for bashir to go-i guess she doesn't actually think everyone is entitled to free speech. just people she agrees with.

[GenuineRisk]

http://gawker.com/the-saga-of-justin...ist-1487762376

This woman, on the other hand, did get fired. With reason. I don't think anyone this stupid should be handling PR.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

http://gawker.com/the-saga-of-justin...ist-1487762376

This woman, on the other hand, did get fired. With reason. I don't think anyone this stupid should be handling PR.

yeah, i added her near the bottom of page two. idiot. even comedians have paid for going too far, gilbert godfried (sp?) found that out, and is no longer the aflac duck. so, she might say oh, i was kidding-but her post was over the top, for several reasons.
with the job i have, i pretty much keep my opinions to myself. hell, i don't even have lsu stuff up at the office so as to avoid hurting hog fans sensibilities.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

http://gawker.com/the-saga-of-justin...ist-1487762376

This woman, on the other hand, did get fired. With reason. I don't think anyone this stupid should be handling PR.

Is she related to Palin
On that same page, who the heck bought this painting

http://gawker.com/george-zimmerman-p...@jordansargent

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Is she related to Palin
On that same page, who the heck bought this painting:zz:

http://gawker.com/george-zimmerman-p...@jordansargent

ted nugent??

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't recall anyone saying they were. i know some right wing nutjobs were screaming about the suspension, but i don't think anyone said the guy was fired.

i also find it interesting that sarah palin was one of the people blathering about it, not long after calling for bashir to go-i guess she doesn't actually think everyone is entitled to free speech. just people she agrees with.

There are certain things that will get a person fired, regardless of their right to free speech. It just depends what the person says. If a person says that they hate a certain group, that person will probably get fired.

If a person says that they are a Christian and they believe that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore they think people should repent from anything that the Bible says is sin, I don't think that person deserves to get fired. By the way, Phil Robertson didn't single out any one group or any one sin. He was talking about all sin (sin according to the Bible). He even mentioned straight men that are sleeping around with a lot of women.

Anyway, I think there is a big difference between that and hate speech. There are certain religions where you can't drink or smoke. I like to have a glass of wine once in a while. Do you think I would be offended if a person said (in an interview) that according to their religion I was sinning by having a drink? The answer is no. I wouldn't be offended at all.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are certain things that will get a person fired, regardless of their right to free speech. It just depends what the person says. If a person says that they hate a certain group, that person will probably get fired.

If a person says that they are a Christian and they believe that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore they think people should repent from anything that the Bible says is sin, I don't think that person deserves to get fired. By the way, Phil Robertson didn't single out any one group or any one sin. He was talking about all sin (sin according to the Bible). He even mentioned straight men that are sleeping around with a lot of women.

Anyway, I think there is a big difference between that and hate speech. There are certain religions where you can't drink or smoke. I like to have a glass of wine once in a while. Do you think I would be offended if a person said (in an interview) that according to their religion I was sinning by having a drink? The answer is no. I wouldn't be offended at all.

i think this is a fair defense. at least tens of millions in america believe the bible is the literal word of god and live their lives accordingly. in a land with freedom of religion, that is their right.

i wonder though about the focus on the one part in leviticus which forbids lying with a man. leviticus forbids a hell of a lot more than just that. you can't wear clothing that mixes two kinds of fabric. leviticus is also the basis of kosher law which means no lobster or pig as a start. in fact the mere touching of their skin is forbidden. eating fat or blood. having sex with a woman during her period. picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard. holding back wages on an employee overnight. bearing a grudge. cross breeding animals. sleeping with another mans slave (apparently god approves if you both have a slave and sleep with her). cutting your hair at the sides. getting tattoos. failing to stand in the presence of the elderly. selling land permanently. working on the sabbath.

if you are living according to all 73 of the laws stated in leviticus, i have no problem. but since i know that it's almost impossible for anyone in the modern world to do so, i think it's fair to ask if some animus might be behind the focus on that one bit.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i think this is a fair defense. at least tens of millions in america believe the bible is the literal word of god and live their lives accordingly. in a land with freedom of religion, that is their right.

i wonder though about the focus on the one part in leviticus which forbids lying with a man. leviticus forbids a hell of a lot more than just that. you can't wear clothing that mixes two kinds of fabric. leviticus is also the basis of kosher law which means no lobster or pig as a start. in fact the mere touching of their skin is forbidden. eating fat or blood. having sex with a woman during her period. picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard. holding back wages on an employee overnight. bearing a grudge. cross breeding animals. sleeping with another mans slave (apparently god approves if you both have a slave and sleep with her). cutting your hair at the sides. getting tattoos. failing to stand in the presence of the elderly. selling land permanently. working on the sabbath.

if you are living according to all 73 of the laws stated in leviticus, i have no problem. but since i know that it's almost impossible for anyone in the modern world to do so, i think it's fair to ask if some animus might be behind the focus on that one bit.

of course it's animus. when you mention the mixed fabrics, etc, you hear that there's a 'new covenant' from jesus. that the old testament doesn't apply.
except for the homosexual part. but people don't pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow, and what they can now ignore. of course you can eat shellfish now, and pork...

you just..you know, can't lay with another man if you are one. cause leviticus.
it's perfectly logical, god. you just have to know what counts, and what doesn't.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i think this is a fair defense. at least tens of millions in america believe the bible is the literal word of god and live their lives accordingly. in a land with freedom of religion, that is their right.

i wonder though about the focus on the one part in leviticus which forbids lying with a man. leviticus forbids a hell of a lot more than just that. you can't wear clothing that mixes two kinds of fabric. leviticus is also the basis of kosher law which means no lobster or pig as a start. in fact the mere touching of their skin is forbidden. eating fat or blood. having sex with a woman during her period. picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard. holding back wages on an employee overnight. bearing a grudge. cross breeding animals. sleeping with another mans slave (apparently god approves if you both have a slave and sleep with her). cutting your hair at the sides. getting tattoos. failing to stand in the presence of the elderly. selling land permanently. working on the sabbath.

if you are living according to all 73 of the laws stated in leviticus, i have no problem. but since i know that it's almost impossible for anyone in the modern world to do so, i think it's fair to ask if some animus might be behind the focus on that one bit.

Those are good points but I don't think most Christians focus on the Old Testament.

Here is a good article that I just read about this whole Duck Dynasty debate. This is the only article I've read that talks about the true conflict that has really been ignored. IMO.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...debate/282587/

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Those are good points but I don't think most Christians focus on the Old Testament.

Here is a good article that I just read about this whole Duck Dynasty debate. This is the only article I've read that talks about the true conflict that has really been ignored. IMO.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...debate/282587/

Towards the top on the right click on..

A True Duck Travesty

Highlights from late-night comedy

to get the comic view...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Those are good points but I don't think most Christians focus on the Old Testament.

Here is a good article that I just read about this whole Duck Dynasty debate. This is the only article I've read that talks about the true conflict that has really been ignored. IMO.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...debate/282587/

yeah, i saw that earlier.
i disagree that it is 'strongly condemned' in the bible.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...ible_says.html

and this just came out, which bears that out.

as for people justifying hate because it's their 'religious belief', it's still hate...and is counter to what the original christian had to say about loving one another, not judging, etc.



people have freedom of speech...and of course freedom of religion. however, their freedom to swing their religious fist ends at the tip of the other guys nose.

many christians don't focus on the OT, unless it's to support an argument they are making. for the most part, it's thrown out as archaic...again, til useful.

since so many supposed christians pick and choose what's sinful, they are out on a limb when using their religions as their reason for judging.
how great a sin when it's someone else committing it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Towards the top on the right click on..

A True Duck Travesty

Highlights from late-night comedy

to get the comic view...

i'm figuring all those fine people at fox didn't come to martin bashirs defense a few weeks back re: his comments about sarah palin.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm figuring all those fine people at fox didn't come to martin bashirs defense a few weeks back re: his comments about sarah palin.

I think this was meant for fox and others..


Thought for today.

"Those wearing tolerance for a label call other views intolerable"-Phyllis McGinley, American poet and author {1905-1978)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

I think this was meant for fox and others..


Thought for today.

"Those wearing tolerance for a label call other views intolerable"-Phyllis McGinley, American poet and author {1905-1978)

yeah, it's easy to support freedom of speech when someone agrees with what's being said.

it's why, much as i dislike westboro 'church', i know they have their right to their stupidity and standing and saying rotten things at funerals, etc. also why even the kkk has a right to their parades. i don't get why they do what they do...but i get that they can do it.

as the saying goes 'i don't agree with what you say, but i will defend your right to say it'.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, it's easy to support freedom of speech when someone agrees with what's being said.

it's why, much as i dislike westboro 'church', i know they have their right to their stupidity and standing and saying rotten things at funerals, etc. also why even the kkk has a right to their parades. i don't get why they do what they do...but i get that they can do it.

as the saying goes 'i don't agree with what you say, but i will defend your right to say it'.

I usta use that line at the old YB message board with a minor change.
'I don't agree with what you say but i will defend with YOUR life the right to say it'

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

I usta use that line at the old YB message board with a minor change.
'I don't agree with what you say but i will defend with YOUR life the right to say it'

yeah, it's funny...people bash the aclu...til they need them. or think they should step in.

yeah, old sarah palin...raised hell when rahm emanuel said 'retarded', defended rush for saying it.
screamed bloody murder for msnbc to do something to bashir, who ended up fired, but phil has free speech rights and shouldn't have been suspended. but-doesn't the gop think that businesses should be able to do as they please?

gotta love that consistency.