Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Let me cry in my soup for poor Alec Baldwin.

He got to bang Kim Basinger. No pity for him.

I'm sure while he is swimming his pool filled with money he gives a gak.

And Robinson is swimming in his money and hunting his giant acres of land. So you care why?

You also backed up the "nothing happened to Baldwin" post when he did in fact get fired. But we know your track record with facts...

 d-usa wrote:
We have had people lie in this thread and say that nothing happened to Baldwin. Are people going to ignore the fact that he got fired?

He's still a Capital One dude...

Wait... step back... Baldwin had a show on MSNBC? o.O


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Fox news was really trumpeting free speech when Martin Bashir said someone should gak in Sarah Palin's mouth... oh wait they demanded he be fired and.. oh ya, he was fired...

If the first amendment guaranteed every american their own reality show I'd say his rights were being infringed upon. This is exactly like the Paula Deen situation, if you cost your employer money; they’re likely to fire you, pretty simple.

So...wait... you want your news commentors to say that on their company's show?

Secondly... Phil R was interviewing for GQ... this was shown on the A&E show (as far as I know).

See the difference?

As to your first post, I don't recall saying I want anything.

Merely pointing out that Bashir said that ON HIS SHOW.

What Phil R said was during an interview for GQ... His views wasn't aired on one of A&E's Duck Dynasty shows.

See?

I'm not sure I follow, are you suggesting magazine interviews occur outside of recorded history and or objective reality?

You're misunderstanding me... see above.

Baldwin's actions did not occur on his show but they were enough to get him suspended and eventually fired from the show, was his freedom of speech infringed upon?

Baldwin had done that on MULTIPLE occasion. This wasn't a heat-of-the-moment one time thing...

The drunk donkey-cave research in motion executives who made a huge drunken scene and caused a plane to be diverted also got the axe from their employer, but wait, it didn't happen while they were at the office so it doesn't count right? They should be able to keep their jobs obviously...

I don't even know what to say...

What Phil R. said/done isn't even close to was that drunk donkey-cave did. O.o

Let me write it slowly.

A) A&E filming a conservative, deeply religious show and making feth ton of money
B) Phil Robertson quotes the fething bible regarding what he believes are sins in an interview for GQ
C) faux-outrage ensues

Did I sum that up easily for you?

Frankly, if anyone is outrage about that... I'd question their intelligence.

Hell, fox doesn't have a leg to stand on here, we all remember glenn beck.. who totally still must work there right? Oh wait...

What does Fox/Beck have the feth to do with all this?

All I know is at this moment Im not looking forward to Christmas with my cousin, I have to spend 6 hours smoking rips with him, and I know this will be all he talks about

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We have had people lie in this thread and say that nothing happened to Baldwin. Are people going to ignore the fact that he got fired?

He's still a Capital One dude...

Wait... step back... Baldwin had a show on MSNBC? o.O

Yeah, msnbc cancelled it after he had a much publicized altercation in which he called a photographer a bunch of homosexual slurs. And it's worth pointing out baldwin is all for homosexuality, still, his actions were deemed to be too much by his employers. gak happens.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We have had people lie in this thread and say that nothing happened to Baldwin. Are people going to ignore the fact that he got fired?

He's still a Capital One dude...

Wait... step back... Baldwin had a show on MSNBC? o.O

Yeah, msnbc cancelled it after he had a much publicized altercation in which he called a photographer a bunch of homosexual slurs. And it's worth pointing out baldwin is all for homosexuality, still, his actions were deemed to be too much by his employers. gak happens.

I just did some google-fu... you're right.

o.O

Holy gak... I think I'd watch some news cast with Alec fething Balwin... just think of all the materials for comedy coming from that show.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
All I know is at this moment Im not looking forward to Christmas with my cousin, I have to spend 6 hours smoking rips with him, and I know this will be all he talks about

Smoking ribs sounds awesome.

And it's interesting were likening the Robertson situation to Alec Baldwin. Are we now saying Robertson used any slurs?

People brought him up because they said Baldwin got away without punishment while Robertson got punished. We established that this was not the case.

Now people might say that he didn't get punished enough because he still peddles Capital One. But Robertson still peddles gak with his face on it in tons of stores.

So the lesson is: conservatives and liberals say stupid stuff, get punished some, life goes on.

That's not quite it D...

The real question is this: Should media companies, of all institution, be in the business of using coercive tactics to compel a particular mode of belief and expression? (am I saying this right?)

If Mr Robertson really is a good Christian and all concerned about who get into heaven, he should sell all his possessions and give his money to the poor, for it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.

And that's straight from the Son of God, not some hardcore gamer who wrote some gak down years after the fact and got his dodgy fanfic into the BRB.

*Sigh* The correctly translated passage is CAMALS HAIR. which is coarse and difficult to get through, not impossible

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Sigh* The correctly translated passage is CAMALS HAIR. which is coarse and difficult to get through, not impossible

Is that true or are pulling my leg?

It something my old HS teacher said. Im doing some research, some say it is wrong some say it is right

jamesk1973 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Sigh* The correctly translated passage is CAMALS HAIR. which is coarse and difficult to get through, not impossible

Is that true or are pulling my leg?

It seems to be a Gospel of Wealth bit of wishful thinking.

You can find multiple versions as well as commentary here, and none of them seem to agree with that version.

 Ahtman wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Sigh* The correctly translated passage is CAMALS HAIR. which is coarse and difficult to get through, not impossible

Is that true or are pulling my leg?

It seems to be a Gospel of Wealth bit of wishful thinking.

You can find multiple versions as well as commentary here, and none of them seem to agree with that version.

Surely if it was correctly translated they would have spelled camel properly.

 whembly wrote:
Let me write it slowly.

A) A&E filming a conservative, deeply religious show and making feth ton of money
B) Phil Robertson quotes the fething bible regarding what he believes are sins in an interview for GQ
C) faux-outrage ensues

Did I sum that up easily for you?

You left out the part where he said, essentially, that black people were ruined by welfare and that they were better off during the Jim Crow era.

Looks like A&E is going to show how much they dissaprove of Duck Dynasty opinions with a Christmas week marathon of the show.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
*Sigh* The correctly translated passage is CAMALS HAIR. which is coarse and difficult to get through, not impossible

No need to sigh, kid. I would have thought you'd whinny, anyways.

Jesus is on record many times speaking out against wealth, greed and lust for power.

He says not one word about homosexuality.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Let me write it slowly.

A) A&E filming a conservative, deeply religious show and making feth ton of money
B) Phil Robertson quotes the fething bible regarding what he believes are sins in an interview for GQ
C) faux-outrage ensues

Did I sum that up easily for you?

You left out the part where he said, essentially, that black people were ruined by welfare and that they were better off during the Jim Crow era.

wut? That's not what he said dude.

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

No where there saying blacks were ruined by welfare and that they were better in Jim Crow era... he's just giving his anecdotal experience.

It's like some folks are trying really hard to make him look bad as much as possible.

Don't you see that?

First off, the time frame he is talking about what before the civil rights movement. We're talking about a time when black people were beaten for the "crime" of trying to vote, when there were still lynchings. This is a fact and not an opinion, yes?

So, all the blacks were happy back then, working. Sure, they were second class citizens - up until Mr. Robertson was 8 he attended segregated schools, Ms. Parks didn't refuse to give up her seat until he was 9, and so on - but they were "happy".

He then goes to - pre entitlement, pre-welfare. He's somehow leapt to the fact that "blacks" as a group get welfare and entitlements (despite the fact that the average welfare recipient is a single, working white mother, but lets put that to the side) which is in itself pretty shady. Right? Still not really a leap from what he said.

He then says "they were godly, they were happy, no one was singing the blues". Pre-welfare, pre-entitlement. Now that "the blacks" have welfare and entitlements, they are less godly, less happy, singing the blues. Welfare, in his mind, ruined black people. They were happier and better off when he was growing up, in the late 40s and early 50s. This is not exactly some strangled interpretation of a cryptic enigma here, he spoke plainly.

To paraphrase you, "It's like some folks are trying really hard to make him look innocent as much as possible."


I have no skin in this game. I've never watched the show. I knew nothing whatsoever about this guy 48 hours ago. My only interest in this thread is limited to the fact there aren't any better threads to argue in floating at the top of the OT currently and I'm stuck at work on my day off. So when I tell you what he said was actually a pretty crappy thing, probably worse than what he said about gays, believe me what I say I have no malice towards the guy.

 Ouze wrote:
First off, the time frame he is talking about what before the civil rights movement. We're talking about a time when black people were beaten for the "crime" of trying to vote, when there were still lynchings. This is a fact and not an opinion, yes?

So, all the blacks were happy back then, working. Sure, they were second class citizens - up until Mr. Robertson was 8 he attended segregated schools, Ms. Parks didn't refuse to give up her seat until he was 9, and so on - but they were "happy".

He then goes to - pre entitlement, pre-welfare. He's somehow leapt to the fact that "blacks" as a group get welfare and entitlements (despite the fact that the average welfare recipient is a single, working white mother, but lets put that to the side) which is in itself pretty shady. Right? Still not really a leap from what he said.

He then says "they were godly, they were happy, no one was singing the blues". Pre-welfare, pre-entitlement. Now that "the blacks" have welfare and entitlements, they are less godly, less happy, singing the blues. Welfare, in his mind, ruined black people. They were happier and better off when he was growing up, in the late 40s and early 50s. This is not exactly some strangled interpretation of a cryptic enigma here, he spoke plainly.

To paraphrase you, "It's like some folks are trying really hard to make him look innocent as much as possible."


I have no skin in this game. I've never watched the show. I knew nothing whatsoever about this guy 48 hours ago. My only interest in this thread is limited to the fact there aren't any better threads to argue in floating at the top of the OT currently and I'm stuck at work on my day off. So when I tell you what he said was actually a pretty crappy thing, probably worse than what he said about gays, believe me what I say I have no malice towards the guy.

I am also firmly in the "Who the F is this guy?" boat, but it seems like there are two different readings to this - a lot of people seem to think he was referring to all black people, but my reading is he was simply talking about those with whom he had personal experience, a small, rural population I'd believe.

I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.

 Ouze wrote:
I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.

Yeah... what Bromsy said.

I read it as his personal experience and not painting all blacks with a huge brush. And yes, I'll rephrase that it's like some folks are trying really hard to make him look as bad much as possible.

I actually disagree with him quite a bit... I have good friends who happens to be gay.

Look... I simply despise these coordinated efforts to shut these people up over something simple as a belief.

That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.

That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.

In my estimation, if you're a television executive, freedom of thought, belief, speech and concscience come after keeping sponsors happy and making money.

 Ouze wrote:
I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.

I think he is switching between personal experience, and general commentary, but I don't think anything he said regarding blacks was outright hateful; merely ignorant.

What I got from the comments is that the guy doesn't really know anything about the history of blacks in the US, and that he doesn't like entitlements. Pretty much your standard blue collar, old, Southern man.

 whembly wrote:
That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.

I do value those things. I think he should be able to say whatever the hell he wants, and am grateful I had the good fortune to be born in one of the relatively few countries where I also have those rights with nearly no restrictions.

I also feel just as strongly that A&E has the right to decide that they don't want to subsidize his views, either, just as my job is free to choose to release me if I say something offensive to management that makes clients unhappy (for example).

 whembly wrote:

Look... I simply despise these coordinated efforts to shut these people up over something simple as a belief.

Do you feel the same way about the coordinated efforts to "shut up" Westboro Baptist Church?

 whembly wrote:

That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.

See, I argue that a coordinated effort to shut anyone up is a necessary consequence of public dialogue, which is itself necessary in a society that involves all of the freedoms you mentioned.

Put differently, you're free to say, believe, and think anything you want. But you must accept that other people are as well, and that this will inevitably lead to confrontation. Welcome to the marketplace of ideas.

He has the freedom of speech to tell everybody what he thinks.

A&E has the freedom of speech to decide what the message is they want to send and give people the platform if they agree with them.

People have the freedom of speech to tell A&E what they think.

Advertisers have the freedom of speech (money edition) to not sponsor stuff that they don't agree with.

Man, I gotta tell you, I was so conflicted about the Westboro funeral protesting. I agree they have a right to do it and I think the supreme court made the right call, but if a mourner casually went over and started stabbing them, I wouldn't be able to convict if I were on that jury.

But I guess this is a tangent.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.

That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.

In my estimation, if you're a television executive, freedom of thought, belief, speech and concscience come after keeping sponsors happy and making money.

Judging from all the reversals and the Duck Dynasty marathon for Christmas week, they decided it was a bad move to try to shut the guy down.