Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The old guy with a big beard on that A&E show about a bunch of guys who make duck calls got fired (surprise! un-fired!)

Springfield

By Springfield
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

PF Chang

PF Chang

Posted
Posted

You mean other than to annoy people? 

 

I read everything including Kos and DU, though I usually just get my Freeper info from Predicto  :ph34r:

 

Gotcha -- makes sense, as you are far more reasonable than the image I associate with conservatives on the internet, which is mostly based on people like the commenters in that Breitbart article  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

If by equate you mean consider both sexual sins of equal consequence....yes a majority of the religious do.

 

ya lose of few with women with women though  :rolleyes:  :)

 

The bible doesn't make that equivalence not even in the old testiment.

 

The bible equates adultery, theft,  efeminant behavior, etc...

Hell I saw where Cali arrested a couple for being nekkid .....I thought they were progressives.

 

 

then you going to hell too because leviticus clearly states you  aren't supposed to look at naked boys and girls.   same book which condemns homosexuality..   Check that...  it's conditional...  you may or may not be in the clear.

 

The bible has a lot to say about nakedness... leviticus 18

‘None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the Lord. 7 The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness. 9 The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover. 10 The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs is your own nakedness. 11 The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten by your father—she is your sister—you shall not uncover her nakedness. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is near of kin to your father. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is near of kin to your mother. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother. You shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law—she is your son’s wife—you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are near of kin to her. It is wickedness. 18 Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.

19 ‘Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted

Hell I saw where Cali arrested a couple for being nekkid .....I thought they were progressives.

Maybe they were not very good looking. You know the rules. Yucky = illegal. Hot = legal.

And don't pretend this ain't so. You know why there is so much fuss about male homosexuals and not about female homosexuals.

Also, Yucky and hot at the same time = closeted GOP :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain James

Captain James

Posted
Posted

Actually they pretty much do make it up...   Jesus never once condemned gay people in the bible...  and their is exactly one instance of speak against Gay people in the New testiment and it's equated with steeling, drinking too much,  infidelity,  sex out of marriage,  or masterbation..   and it was written by Paul a person who never met Jesus  decades after Jesus died.

 

 

Yet the evangelicals only come down on the "effeminate".....

 

Now where are several passages in the old testiment... leviticus..  but eating shellfish and playing football (touching pig skins) are condemned equally in the same passages and the evangelicals don't have anything to say about these things....

There are those who pick and choose from the Bible and those (like me) who believe the Bible is the inerrant and inspired story of God's relationship with man. The argument that "Jesus never said..." is terribly weak. He Himself spoke in John chapter 16 that there was much more that He did not have the time to teach them. 

 

12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

 

Agree to disagree I suppose. We Christians cannot agree on a lot of things anyway haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain James

Captain James

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry Leviticus is a train wreck.  

 

I always thought  Jesus created a new covenent which replaced the old testiment with the new testiment.

Generally speaking, this is correct. Still, most Christians hold to the entire Bible as being one complete inspired work of God. Why must you call Leviticus a "train wreck"? I'm not personally offended because I understand that everyone is at a different place in their life. BUT, it could definitely offend someone by calling part of our precious Bible a "train wreck".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

BTW, been meaning to observe, for some time, here. 

 

Yeah, I'm well aware that the anti-gay crusade has been trying to equate being gay with child molesters, goat ****ing, polygamy, rape, and cheering for the Eagles.  For a decade, at least.  It's been a standard part of the playbook.  I have no doubt that there are/were several posters on ES who've done it, dozens of times, each, on this board alone. 

 

So I can understand why, after a while, the group being attacked tends to have developed well-conditioned reflexes of offendedness to anything resembling it.  No doubt similar to the way other despised minorities have become over sensitive to things that were hurled at them, for decades. 

 

BUT, looking at what this guy said?  I don't see him equating those things. 

 

IMO, he may be an ignorant bigoted redneck.  (He may not.  I don't have enough evidence to convict, so to speak).  But IMO, he's Not Guilty of the sin of claiming that those things he listed were all equal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

Hell I saw where Cali arrested a couple for being nekkid .....I thought they were progressives.

 

That was right outside my office window.  The same 5 naked people go out of their way to get arrested all the time there.  This time the police were nice enough to let them complete their marriage ceremony.   :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

No. he is saying they are all wrong....do you see any reason to equate Baldwin and this dude?

 

Actually, yes.  They both got in trouble with their employers for saying something that the employers were afraid would cost them money.  

BTW, been meaning to observe, for some time, here. 

 

Yeah, I'm well aware that the anti-gay crusade has been trying to equate being gay with child molesters, goat ****ing, polygamy, rape, and cheering for the Eagles.  For a decade, at least.  It's been a standard part of the playbook.  I have no doubt that there are/were several posters on ES who've done it, dozens of times, each, on this board alone. 

 

So I can understand why, after a while, the group being attacked tends to have developed well-conditioned reflexes of offendedness to anything resembling it.  No doubt similar to the way other despised minorities have become over sensitive to things that were hurled at them, for decades. 

 

BUT, looking at what this guy said?  I don't see him equating those things. 

 

IMO, he may be an ignorant bigoted redneck.  (He may not.  I don't have enough evidence to convict, so to speak).  But IMO, he's Not Guilty of the sin of claiming that those things he listed were all equal. 

 

 

Every bit of this post is true.  However, when you are a public figure, you have to be careful how you say things - or your employer will get nervous (as is their right).  This scuffle was completely inevitable when he began talking about homosexuality and bestiality and going to hell in the same breath.   No one is going to parse it down very carefully after that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Every bit of this post is true.  However, when you are a public figure, you have to be careful how you say things - or your employer will get nervous (as is their right).  This scuffle was completely inevitable when he began talking about homosexuality and bestiality and going to hell in the same breath.   No one is going to parse it down very carefully after that.

Oh, I'm not saying they were wrong to fire the guy. (Might have been a case of over reaction. Might not have been a GOOD business decision. But it's in their authority.)

Just saying that I don't see him as being guilty of the specific crime of "equating being gay with goat ****ing". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

Oh, I'm not saying they were wrong to fire the guy. (Might have been a case of over reaction. Might not have been a GOOD business decision. But it's in their authority.)

Just saying that I don't see him as being guilty of the specific crime of "equating being gay with goat ****ing". 

 

Agreed.  But that really isn't the issue (although many conservatives are tying to MAKE it the issue).  

 

They want the story to be "no one is allowed to believe in the bible anymore we're so oppressed!!!!"  (Sarah Palin version)

 

instead of "employers can still fire controversial employees to protect their business profits" (normal people version)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Agreed. But that really isn't the issue (although many conservatives are tying to MAKE it the issue).

They want the story to be "no one is allowed to believe in the bible anymore we're so oppressed!!!!" (Sarah Palin version)

instead of "employers can still fire controversial employees to protect their business profits" (normal people version)

Oh, as to THAT reality disconnect, I point at Kilmer's invoking the Dixie Chicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mad Mike

Mad Mike

Posted
Posted

There are those who pick and choose from the Bible and those (like me) who believe the Bible is the inerrant and inspired story of God's relationship with man. The argument that "Jesus never said..." is terribly weak. He Himself spoke in John chapter 16 that there was much more that He did not have the time to teach them. 

 

12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

 

Agree to disagree I suppose. We Christians cannot agree on a lot of things anyway haha.

 

I seriously doubt that when he said "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." he meant for one of us to fill in the blanks with whatever we chose. 

 

I dont understand the logic of saying you believe the bible to be "inerrant" And then arguing that because Jesus didn't say something doesn't mean he didn't mean it.

 

I would think that putting words in his mouth would be a sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted

Oh, I'm not saying they were wrong to fire the guy. (Might have been a case of over reaction. Might not have been a GOOD business decision. But it's in their authority.)

Just saying that I don't see him as being guilty of the specific crime of "equating being gay with goat ****ing".

That's a good point. You know what, maybe this whole thing is a devious plan by Democrats to split the social and fiscal conservatives of the GOP :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

Actually, yes.  They both got in trouble with their employers for saying something that the employers were afraid would cost them money.  

 

\

 

Fair point, though I tend to focus on the difference in the nature of the offense.

 

Baldwin (nor the Dixie Chicks) had their opinion expressly solicited and the setting and delivery is quite different .

 

 

This guy might have a point in that A&E is simply flailing around to find a exit strategy 

 

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/duck-dynasty-the-show-that-got-away-from-them

 

After A&E fired Phil Robertson for saying what every good Christian should believe, social media has been abuzz.  One of the recurring themes has been puzzlement about why A&E would cut off its nose to spite its face.  Duck Dynasty is the franchise right now. Why would they risk destroying their own cash cow?

To understand the why, we have to go back to the beginning.  Duck Dynasty is not the show that they wanted, it is the show that got away from them.

It seems what the producers intended and what A&E envisioned with the show is much different than the show that they ended up with, but they didn't do anything about it because it was so wildly popular and so wildly profitable.  But even with all the money, they have never really been comfortable with what happened.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/duck-dynasty-the-show-that-got-away-from-them#ixzz2o3OfdODn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...