is everyone outraged over the outrage of the day?

SVreX wrote: In reply to ronholm: You really mixed those references. Robertson made a reference to the Civil Rights Movement. That was in the 1960's. You referenced the Abolitionist Movement. That was over a hundred years earlier.

I referenced the abolitionist movement because in my mind... When a so called "liberal" hears a white guy talking about a person with Black skin working in a field... They automatically jump to "slavery".

This is why they think his comments 'racist'.... Even in the absence of any connection to the civil rights movement many, through all of their 'independant thought', would have came to the same conclusion.

And really... Democrats in the 1860's.... "christian"... in the same sense of the word a republican like Fredrick Douglas would call himself Christian????? Nope... He wrote a little piece on it.. look it up...

BUT!

To proclaim for the sake of internet arguing that Christians were on both sides... Fine... Just understand I reject that argument because of what I believe a Christian should stand for in order to define himself as such...

Phil makes a great point!!!! in 1949 a Black family was more likely a happier unit than a Black family in 2009!!!! (statiscally and and analytically speaking)

This isn't to say that stripping anyone of their God given rights is going to magically make them happy... Just that somehow in the mix... Those damn democrats (and others) using the same bullchit 'religious' ideas they have left over from the 1860's have driven a culture which is fundamentally unhappy... Just talk to old Black men... They are very, very, different from most of the younger generations...

Case point..

Just the other day I was working at the home of a retired Major General... Bio http://www.goordnance.army.mil/hof/2000/2006/klugh.html

This guy was earning brass long before they were handing it out just for "equal opportunity"... His neighbor... A Korea vet... Who volunteered for Nam... Both of them seriously great guys... These guys didn't need a bunch of democrats to tell them they were 'equal', or give them anything because somehow some idiot thinks himself cool by determining the color of a mans skin gives him a disadvantage... and he needs extra help because of it... and kids these days damn sure don't need democrats selling them into slavery by convincing them they can't make it because some white dude is in their way.,..

How about we maybe ask ole Phil for his solution????

Looks like he raised a son... who.... well.... Doesn't seem very racist to me???

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20743936,00.html

In other news...

Study after study shows feminists are generally more unhappy than their conservative counterparts... So don't forget to chalk me up as sexist also...

z31maniac wrote: Please explain how A&E "censored" him.

Umm... they took him off the air.

That's a reasonably effective method of censoring someone.

Racer1ab wrote: BSA? I hate subliminal messages with my pie.

SVreX wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Please explain how A&E "censored" him.

Umm... they took him off the air. That's a reasonably effective method of censoring someone.

All of which comes down to a single question, which NOBODY here (or 99.999% of the outraged people on both sides) is informed enough to answer:

Was he in violation of his contract with A&E when he said what he did?

If yes, he should have been fired. If no, he should not have been. END OF FREAKING STORY.

I wrote something. Then changed my mind.

In reply to Beer Baron:

I didn't write anything. Then changed my mind.

In reply to Beer Baron:

In other words: "First world problems..."

(I read what you wrote before it was deleted)

I think Duck Dynasty perpetuates horrible negative stereotypes of Rural Hetero White Americans, along with Honey Boo Boo and Larry The Cable Guy. As a Rural Hetero White American, I am deeply offended and outraged over this, and the racial slurs here in this very thread. Words such as Redneck and Hillbilly should be banned from the American language.

Truth is that what he said was so widely acceptable that up until 20-25 years ago it wouldn't have been even worthy to print, as nobody wants to read what everyoe else thinks/says/feels. It is only since the late 80s/early 90s that somehow the media has started forcing the "all must love gay" agenda down our collective throat. Somehow, what was considered an abomination since the dawn of mankind is now something to be embraced? Yeah right.

Ashyukun wrote: Eh, as far as fabricated reality TV shows go, I'll stick with SWMBO's new favorite- Flipping Vegas. At least in that I get to watch a couple of slick cars driving around, walls being knocked down, and an overabundance of realtors who look more like porn stars.

Now there is one guy who I doubt would make a gay slur, unless its only to hide his true self. He screams gayness... other than his having a wife.

Duke wrote: All of which comes down to a single question, which NOBODY here (or 99.999% of the outraged people on both sides) is informed enough to answer: *Was he in violation of his contract with A&E when he said what he did?* If yes, he should have been fired. If no, he should not have been. END OF FREAKING STORY.

Since they said suspended rather than fired it would appear there was no breach of contract otherwise they most likely would have just fired him.

I saw some guy say sometthing on some news channel yesterday morning that I found way more harmful to a group of people, with much more potential harm to them than the old Duckdude said...

His words "our study has shown Black people to tip lass than other races"

Okay, no slur in his words. But if you waited on tables and depended on tips for a living, and two families walked into the establishment, one white one black, which table would you serve first?

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Please explain how A&E "censored" him.

Umm... they took him off the air. That's a reasonably effective method of censoring someone.

All of which comes down to a single question, which NOBODY here (or 99.999% of the outraged people on both sides) is informed enough to answer: *Was he in violation of his contract with A&E when he said what he did?* If yes, he should have been fired. If no, he should not have been. END OF FREAKING STORY.

Sorry, I disagree.

His contract is irrelevant.

He WAS NOT FIRED. He was suspended. I've never heard anyone say if that was with or without pay.

Suspension is completely within A&E's rights, regardless of what his contract says (unless it says he can't be suspended, which I am confident it does not say).

And they most certainly also censored him by suspending him.

Rumor is he'll be back on the air in January.

Dang. 8 pages wasted.

Like I said... Phil= Brian

^ Wasted? I think not. The first few pages were some of the funniest stuff I've seen in quite a while. Way better than the actual show, the GQ quotes, or the faux outrage on the news channels.

Flyin Mikey J wrote: Somehow, what was considered an abomination since the dawn of mankind is now something to be embraced? Yeah right.

Quite the inaccurate and false statement.

fritzsch wrote:

Flyin Mikey J wrote: Somehow, what was considered an abomination since the dawn of mankind is now something to be embraced? Yeah right.

Quite the inaccurate and false statement.

Difference of opinion, as there are few facts to back it up. Many opinions, few facts.

In reply to SVreX:

Not a waste, it got you to comment on it.

Which is exactly what this whole situation is about.

Something about there being no such thing as bad publicity.

Define "dawn of mankind". I'm an archaeologist, I may be able to help contribute facts. Or not, I don't want to feed a potential flounder. I'd still like to know how any of you define the dawn of mankind. It's literally some archaeologists' jobs to figure that e36m3 out and they have trouble with it. Constantly new facts screw with previous ideas, everyone disagrees where to define things, etc...

And before you tell me to shut my academic mouth up, just know anthropologists love booze, you'd all get along with us really well.

Ok, I will admit that may be an overstatement. My error. Gays have been accepted and adored for thousands of years. See that too would be an overstatement.

Flyin Mikey J wrote: Ok, I will admit that may be an overstatement. My error. Gays have been accepted and adored for thousands of years. See that too would be an overstatement.

Well, you say that may be an overstatement, but depending on your location in space and time, maybe not. you cant essentialize human culture and history into one grand narrative. It is more likely to say that at any given time, certain cultures adored homosexuals, some abhored them, and some didn't care. Also, gender categories vary from culture to culture, so while "homosexual" works in an american cultural view, such a category may be foreign to others, despite the existence of same sex relationsips. It's far more fluid than the gay-straight-bi triad americans seem to view sexuality.

Ok I'm done, I didn't want to contribute. Still curious on defining dawn of mankind, especially now that Neanderthal genome sequencing hit the mainstream media.

Having worked retail for over 5 years, I'm absolutely certain that some members of our society haven't even come down from the trees yet.

Trans_Maro wrote: Having worked retail for over 5 years, I'm absolutely certain that some members of our society haven't even come down from the trees yet.

They come down twice a year. Once to do some Walmart Christmas shopping, the other for the Fireworks and Demo Derby on the Fourth of July.