JohnnyMarko 1 #326 December 29, 2013 RobertMBlevins They should run a dual-cast episode starring the folks from Duck Dynasty and Larry the Cable Guy. That way, you can get two bad shows out of the way at one time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #327 December 29, 2013 Quote What the fuck are you talking about? Quote me What the fuck are you talking about? Quote me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,256 #328 December 29, 2013 Andy9o8 Quote What the fuck are you talking about? Quote me What the fuck are you talking about? Quote me Dammit, you're right!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,055 #329 December 30, 2013 OKAY!!! so, let's wind this up just a little more.... Clay Aiken Joins the Cast of Duck Dynasty ...Not everyone is happy with the situation, however. Although the Robertsons are contractually obligated to honor A&E's casting decisions, they don't seem to be getting along with their new employee. "Personally I think this is bulls**t," says Jase Robertson, who runs the company's manufacturing division. "He's only been here for two days and already the dogs are walking funny. I don't like this one bit. Not one bit." SOURCE: http://dailycurrant.com/2013/12/23/clay-aiken-joins-the-cast-of-duck-dynasty/Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #330 December 30, 2013 I have no idea who Clay Aiken Joins is. I've also never watched even a few seconds on the ducks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #331 December 30, 2013 Quote Everybody on the planet is replaceable and pretty much every one gets replaced at one point or another. Wait WHAT?! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #332 December 30, 2013 airtwardo Quote Everybody on the planet is replaceable and pretty much every one gets replaced at one point or another. Wait WHAT?! Your day is coming. I think it is scheduled for 3657 . . . January, I think.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #333 December 30, 2013 BIGUNOKAY!!! so, let's wind this up just a little more.... Clay Aiken Joins the Cast of Duck Dynasty ...Not everyone is happy with the situation, however. Although the Robertsons are contractually obligated to honor A&E's casting decisions, they don't seem to be getting along with their new employee. "Personally I think this is bulls**t," says Jase Robertson, who runs the company's manufacturing division. "He's only been here for two days and already the dogs are walking funny. I don't like this one bit. Not one bit." SOURCE: http://dailycurrant.com/2013/12/23/clay-aiken-joins-the-cast-of-duck-dynasty/ Satire website :)Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,055 #334 December 30, 2013 >>>>>>>>>Satire website :) Damn it... How am I supposed to fan the flames of drama if you're going to use logic. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #335 December 30, 2013 Quote4) Tolerance means tolerance. For ALL points of view. I reject this definition of tolerance. Being tolerant simply does not mean you tolerate everything in life. You can have tolerance for some things and be intollerant for others. Tolerance is issue specific and not all encompassing. I tolerate a skydiver yelling "hey asshole", I do not tolerate my 8 year old yelling the same thing at me. With your definition tolerance is an impossible concept. QuoteYou cannot be tolerant and intolerant at the same time. Sure you can....see above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #336 December 30, 2013 SkyDekkerQuote4) Tolerance means tolerance. For ALL points of view. I reject this definition of tolerance. Being tolerant simply does not mean you tolerate everything in life. You can have tolerance for some things and be intollerant for others. Tolerance is issue specific and not all encompassing. I tolerate a skydiver yelling "hey asshole", I do not tolerate my 8 year old yelling the same thing at me. With your definition tolerance is an impossible concept. ***You cannot be tolerant and intolerant at the same time. Sure you can....see above. What if your daughter skydives? Tolerant then? Or a hypocritical bigot? his point is that you cant claim need for tolerance on an issue, but be intolerant of the opposite side of that issue without being a hypocrite.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,256 #337 December 31, 2013 Quotehis point is that you cant claim need for tolerance on an issue, but be intolerant of the opposite side of that issue without being a hypocrite. The opposite side of the issue would be the claim that heterosexuality is evil. Since that claim is pretty much non-existant then the need for tolerance of it is moot. Edit: Hang on a minute, that's not even right. The other side of asking for tolerance of gay people is tolerance of heterosexual people. Everyone tolerates heterosexual people. So much so that we're commonly referred to as 'people' and the rest is just assumed. (And hypothetically, getting pissed at people who swear isn't the same as bigotry.)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #338 December 31, 2013 jakeeQuotehis point is that you cant claim need for tolerance on an issue, but be intolerant of the opposite side of that issue without being a hypocrite. The opposite side of the issue would be the claim that heterosexuality is evil. Since that claim is pretty much non-existant then the need for tolerance of it is moot. Edit: Hang on a minute, that's not even right. The other side of asking for tolerance of gay people is tolerance of heterosexual people. Everyone tolerates heterosexual people. So much so that we're commonly referred to as 'people' and the rest is just assumed. (And hypothetically, getting pissed at people who swear isn't the same as bigotry.) With all due respect, screw 'tolerance.' I do not tolerate my gay and lesbian friends, I accept them. Their sex life not a matter of interest, as is the case with my straight friends. 'Tolerating' is the most sanctimonious and degrading approach that comes to mind. One does not tolerate something that is fundamentally acceptable; when one tolerates something, the implication is that it fundamentally sucks out loud, but "I, being so fundamentally wise and magnanimous, will see fit to tolerate this otherwise unacceptable thing because I am so wonderful..." Quatsch. If something is unacceptable, it is unacceptable. I do not grant someone the right to 'tolerate' me. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #339 December 31, 2013 jakeeQuotehis point is that you cant claim need for tolerance on an issue, but be intolerant of the opposite side of that issue without being a hypocrite. The opposite side of the issue would be the claim that heterosexuality is evil. Since that claim is pretty much non-existant then the need for tolerance of it is moot. Edit: Hang on a minute, that's not even right. The other side of asking for tolerance of gay people is tolerance of heterosexual people. Everyone tolerates heterosexual people. So much so that we're commonly referred to as 'people' and the rest is just assumed. (And hypothetically, getting pissed at people who swear isn't the same as bigotry.) actually, PR himself in the same interview you got your panties in a wad over, made the claim that heterosexual promiscuity was also a sin. So he actually wasn't singling out homosexuals any more than he did tramps and drunkards...If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #340 December 31, 2013 quade***In his original statement Phil said nothing to dehumanize a group of people or to judge them, simply told of what his religion said... I'm sorry you feel that way. I really am. In my opinion, a person doesn't get a free pass at being a bigot simply because he paraphrased words out of an ancient book of folklore. If we let that happen, we have to excuse the truly horrible behavior of quite a few people, like, for instance, the Taliban and the KKK. To me, it's one of the worst kinds of excuses; using "religion" to promote an agenda of hate. There is a BIG fundamental difference here. The Taliban and KKK ACT on their beliefs by harming and/or discriminating against others. Phil only stated his beliefs and did not pass judgement, nor act against. That is indeed the difference. Words (and not promoting hatred or violence) are different than violent actions.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #341 December 31, 2013 jakee Quote In his original statement Phil said nothing to dehumanize a group of people or to judge them, Yeah, whatever. Only saying it's the root of all sin but hey, no biggie. Quote he didn't say they were criminals as jakee maintains. What the fuck are you talking about? Quote me in post 254 you said this, And he clearly stated all the ugly stuff you've conveniently left out too. As an example, if someone says that "All those damn blacks are criminals and drug addict scum! But I'm not judging them I love everyone" he's still a racist. Except Phil did not say 'all those homosexuals are criminals and drug addict scum', or anything approximating that, which would be accusing them of criminals offences. He merely stated that in his belief system what they were doing was a sin. And did not suggest to anyone to take up pitchforks and rakes and attack them.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #342 December 31, 2013 winsor***Quotehis point is that you cant claim need for tolerance on an issue, but be intolerant of the opposite side of that issue without being a hypocrite. The opposite side of the issue would be the claim that heterosexuality is evil. Since that claim is pretty much non-existant then the need for tolerance of it is moot. Edit: Hang on a minute, that's not even right. The other side of asking for tolerance of gay people is tolerance of heterosexual people. Everyone tolerates heterosexual people. So much so that we're commonly referred to as 'people' and the rest is just assumed. (And hypothetically, getting pissed at people who swear isn't the same as bigotry.) With all due respect, screw 'tolerance.' I do not tolerate my gay and lesbian friends, I accept them. Their sex life not a matter of interest, as is the case with my straight friends. 'Tolerating' is the most sanctimonious and degrading approach that comes to mind. One does not tolerate something that is fundamentally acceptable; when one tolerates something, the implication is that it fundamentally sucks out loud, but "I, being so fundamentally wise and magnanimous, will see fit to tolerate this otherwise unacceptable thing because I am so wonderful..." Quatsch. If something is unacceptable, it is unacceptable. I do not grant someone the right to 'tolerate' me. BSBD, Winsor Well stated.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #343 December 31, 2013 Ever wonder how many people in your life are simply tolerating your antiquated perspective and bigoted views? I'm always impressed with those that pass moral judgement on others without reflective consideration. I'd put money on it that there is something in each and every one of us that someone else could find morally reprehensible. To each their own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #344 December 31, 2013 normissEver wonder how many people in your life are simply tolerating your antiquated perspective and bigoted views? I'm always impressed with those that pass moral judgement on others without reflective consideration. I'd put money on it that there is something in each and every one of us that someone else could find morally reprehensible. To each their own. You mean, passing a moral judgement like you just did here?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #345 December 31, 2013 It's alright folks. At least he's not encouraging parental approved pedophilia... Oh... Never mind... http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-teenage-girls/story?id=21278832Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #346 December 31, 2013 Well, women are more focused on being wives and mothers at that age. Thus your chances of having a stable home are greater than with a two income household.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #347 December 31, 2013 RonD1120Well, women are more focused on being wives and mothers at that age. Thus your chances of having a stable home are greater than with a two income household. 15 and 16 year olds are women, and not girls, now? Yep, stable household for sure. As long as homework from Freshman class in High School doesn't get in the way.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #348 December 31, 2013 It apparently worked for Phil, college grad, family man, successful business.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #349 December 31, 2013 Bare feeted and pregnant. Just like jebus likes 'em. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,256 #350 December 31, 2013 Quoteactually, PR himself in the same interview you got your panties in a wad over, made the claim that heterosexual promiscuity was also a sin. Heterosexual promiscuity, not heterosexuality itself. QuoteSo he actually wasn't singling out homosexuals any more than he did tramps and drunkards... Yes he was. He was singling them out as the starting point.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
