Who are these 2 gay idiots? Its people like them who make people dislike the whole group of them. I think these comments are more vile than anything Phil had to say.

And getting back to A&E, supposedly, starting today or tomorrow..they will be running a marathon of DD daily, thru the holiday season. They dont agree with what Phil had to say..but they have no problem making money on him thru this season. Also, they also shot the next seasons worth of shows. Are they not going to show them?

If I were the Robertson family, I would look into having those new episodes pulled. Although, they are going to see a big decrease of their viewers. People have been posting all over FB how to remove A&E from your cable channel list, so you dont even land on them by accident.

My husband loves this show and will watch episodes over and over again. Since this started..I havent gotten one glimpse of DD.

This is really unbelievable.

Can it be that some rich homo idiot owns MSNBC,and just airs it for a hobby? There is no way in hell any corporate board is going to allow their corporation to go bankrupt due to allowing fools to run it.

Quote: Just Ducky wrote in post #2

---

Who are these 2 gay idiots?

---

Ok...so going back to my generation.....who are these 2 queers?

Wow, MSNBC is getting to be filthier than Howard Stern.

When are women going to figure out that allying themselves with this crowd is really not in their best interest?

Quote: Tribune7 wrote in post #7

---

When are women going to figure out that allying themselves with this crowd is really not in their best interest?

---

Zitat

---

MSNBC: If Phil Robertson And Bobby Jindal Tried Anal Sex They Might Like It…

---

Well, actually, that is plausible but that is not the point.

When a Royal Navy Admiral once accused Winston Churchill (the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time) of having impugned the traditions of the Royal Navy, Churchill replied: “And what are they? They are rum, sodomy and the lash.” This was a paraphrasing of an 18th Century Royal Navy saying that went: “Ashore, it's wine, women and song. Aboard it's rum, bum and concertina”.

If Phil Robertson and Bobby Jindal had been born in the 18th Century and pressed into the Royal Navy ...... Who knows? Like it or not, the small Bobby Jindal would have been quite, .... ummm .... "popular" aboard HMS Bellerophon

Likewise, however, 21st Century and Southern Baptist-raised Phil Robertson is also correct that, as far as HE is concerned (that is how he expressed himself), it is more logical to like a woman’s vagina than a man’s anus. (Please excuse the bluntness. As a medical type, I, like Phil Robertson, am quite unfiltered when it comes to discussing anatomical parts and functions.)
.
From my own medical perspective, I have dealt with more vaginas, anuses, scrotums and penises than Paula Dean has dealt with sticks of butter and it is not “logical” to be attracted to ANY of them. Sex is not about “logic”. What is called sexual desire is instinctual behavior that hormones trigger in the brains of post-pubescent humans, dogs, cats, birds and drone bees. It is not “logical” for annoying little dogs to desire to mate with our human legs but instinct has nothing to do with human “logic”.

So, what is this firestorm all about? So called “vulgarity”?

While checking out a post-Charlie Sheen “Two and a Half Men” episode for the first time, I turned it off after they went on and on about Jon Cryer’s “ball sack” showing when he worked out. I have no problem with scrotums but, beyond 8th Grade, the mere mention of a scrotum is just not funny anymore. I can’t ever recall “Leave It to Beaver” ever relying on genitalia humor (imagine the possibilities) in prime time network TV, so, obviously, the TV standards of “vulgarity” have drastically changed with time. If an over-the-air broadcast TV network can engage in genitalia humor in prime time, Phil Robertson should be able to talk about his preferences of a vagina versus an anus in an interview with an adult magazine such as GQ.

What the firestorm is about is that people who split their sides laughing about vulgarity they agree with are shocked, SHOCKED, about vulgarity they do not agree with and then insist on having it “Banned in Boston”. It goes far further into the totally unacceptable when religious belief (that is specifically protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is cited as a cause for firing by classifying it as “anti-gay bigotry”.

As the openly gay Camille Paglia said, that is “utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist”.

The reality of the matter is that the LGBT community is not one, big, happy family with Kum-Bah-Yah tolerance. That fact is even a running joke in the LGBT community.



The difference is that the tensions within the LGBT community are treated as a joke but religious beliefs are openly called “bigotry” and are actively suppressed.

I, personally, have no moral issues with gays or lesbians. I have gay friends, socialize with gays, have been invited to a lesbian wedding, and the most loyal employee that I have ever had was a lesbian that I hired when a holier-than-thou liberal would not hire her because she was the “butchiest-looking ” butch lesbian you could imagine. (After I hired her, she toned down the in-your-face look without my having to say a single word about it.) I focused on her CV, not her looks or her sex life. In regards to her politics, she was active in the Democratic Party because Republicans wanted nothing to do with her but, sexual orientation aside, she was slightly to the right of Rush Limbaugh. At Democrat Party functions, she would leave liberal jaws hanging open. “Did she just tell the Governor that the State needed to start EXECUTING murderers again?!?”

The way I see things, the issue is not straights vs. gays vs. lesbians vs. religious vs. non-religious vs. liberals vs. conservatives. The issue is people who are willing to fight for the other guy’s free speech and religious rights (like Camille Paglia) vs. people who want to impose Political Correctness by trying to ban your point of view or religion if they disagree with it.

It would be a mistake to treat this as a Gay vs. Religious issue since the majority of gays would gladly stay out of Southern Baptist and Catholic religious doctrine just as long as the Baptist Church and the Catholic Church stayed out of their bedroom. When I say this, I am not talking about the gay Drama Queens dancing in leather thongs in a Gay Pride parade shouting “Anybody that does not agree with my dance is a homophobe!”. Those are the squeaky wheels who actively seek attention and always end up in front of a camera because Drama Queens sell newspapers. I am talking about the gays who focus on their jobs and businesses instead of focusing on political drama.

Like two pit bulls in a death struggle, the Gay vs. Religious factions are locked in a dynamic that ultimately hurts both sides. Right now, there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell that any Bible Belt state advances “gay rights” when “gay rights” now mean that traditional and constitutionally protected Christian beliefs are being flushed down the toilet to appeased the “gay bigotry” Stalinists. Right now, when the U.S. is divided so closely that “hanging chads” in Palm Beach County, Florida can determine a Presidency, it is just plain dumb to drive that butch lesbian into the Democrat Party because her homosexual sins are somehow greater than the sins of every heterosexual servicemember in the U.S. Navy that has ever followed the “Wedding Ring Radius Rule” while on a WESTPAC or with the Sixth Fleet in the Med.

What is important is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and fiscal sanity so that our children’s futures are not destroyed. If a Southern Baptist believes that I am going straight to Hell because of my religious leanings that swing from Agnostic to not-the-holiest-Catholic-in-the-World on any given week …… It is his constitutional right to hold such a religious beliefs and I would be as stupid as a Georgia boiled peanut to reject his vote come November. I may not agree with a Southern Baptist’s religious opinion that I am going straight to Hell but my military service protected his right to believe that and my right to be an Agnostic or a not-the-holiest-Catholic-in-the-World on any given day. It is just common sense to embrace a gay, like Camille Paglia, who holds that same opinion and engage her in the conversation that the religious belief about “sin” does not equate to hatred of the individual.

As I have posted before, genealogy is one of my hobbies. Two of the brothers of two of my X-times-great grandfathers, Fernando de Valdés Salas (1483-1568) and Gaspar de Quiroga y Vela (1512-1595), were both Inquisitor General of Spain which means that whatever they decreed WAS the Spanish Inquisition for all of the Spanish Empire of Phillip II. Trust me on this. Much of Spain’s subsequent miseries were the result of Spain’s unwillingness to: 1.) Tolerate the religious beliefs of others (as gay radicals refuse to do) and 2.) Accept allies even though they are convinced that those other guys are going straight to Hell (as the “There is no place in the Republican Party for gays” faction thinks).


X-Great-Uncle Fernando de Valdés Salas
Inquisitor General of Spain, (1547–1566).


Mausoleum of X-Great-Uncle Fernando de Valdés Salas

@Polybius

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

In reading it this Southern Baptist woman only had one thought and it is this.

I don't see myself as trapped in a struggle that hurts my side.

The radical homosexuals can believe as they want. So can I. It doesn't harm me that they believe as they do.

Why does it harm them that I believe that we are all sinners in need of forgiveness and love? I don't actively engage them in discussion, trying to convert them to my faith. I am no better than they are. I am a sinner, too.

I honestly believe that the A&E executives and the GLAAD people do not understand Christianity and they don't wish to learn. They paint all of us with a broad brush and refuse to admit their ignorance. As such I have no reason to worry about what they think about me.

Thoughtful post, Polybius but there is a difference in recognizing that none of us are without sin as a particular book banned in public schools says, and giving approval for it.

Now you're a medical man. Is it better that we as a society say "We must never speak ill of a particular act" or "For Pete's sake, don't do it"?

And as a military man, I'm sure you've known gays who were good soldiers and good people, but given the chain of command and the power commanders have over subordinates maybe there are some well-learned lessons being discarded about the benefits of a very bright line that may not be crossed allowing for disruptions to be quickly resolved if it should be.

This isn't about "gays vs religious" but about common sense vs social suicide.

Palinista, the operative word is “radical” and you are absolutely correct that it is a total waste of oxygen to try to reason with or even talk to a “radical”. The radical does not want dialogue. The radical wants to use every means possible, fair or unfair, to destroy you.

As I posted earlier, the Robertsons need to lawyer up and go for the A & E Network’s throat for violating Phil Roberstson’s rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The A & E Network was so stupid that it even declared Phil Robertson’s “beliefs” to be the cause of the firing even though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 SPECIFICALLY outlaws employment firings or demotions based upon religious beliefs.

My point is that the battle lines should be drawn between the radical “fascists” and “Stalinists” (as gay Camille Paglia describes the A & E Network conduct) and those who champion Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion …. Be they gay, straight, religious or non-religious.

In issues ranging from fiscal conservatism to business-friendly policies to free speech to religious freedom to strong national defense to lower taxes and decreased spending to, …. ummm, …. frying the guilty bastards to a crisp in the electric chair (my lesbian employee was far more passionate than I ever was about that “conservative” issue) we have a lot of potential allies who are gay or lesbian.

As the Inquisitor General of the Spanish Empire of Queen Elizabeth's arch-enemey, Philip II, my very religious X-Great-Uncle Fernando de Valdés Salas was intolerant to the extreme about your Protestant religion. It is an irony of Hisory that the most religious people are often the most religiously intolerant. By contrast, even when my religious gut-feelings swing from minimal Catholic to Agnostic to Atheist on a really bad day, I would always fight like the Devil to protect your Southern Baptist religious belief rights. So it is with “non-radical” gays and lesbians who believe in the Constitution. Neither “non-religious” nor “gay” implies “anti-religious” or “radical”.

The true battle is between freedom-loving constitutionalists, gay or straight, and freedom-killing radicals who trample religious freedom in order to allegedly advance "gay rights". .