Duck Dynasty

[Certaindeaf]

Yet if you rap about brutalizing women and shooting cops etc., you are idolized.

 

[fishnut23]

This is political correctness taken way too far! I am supposed to allow the gay community to say and do anything they want, but voice your beliefs (that this country was founded on by the way) and you will be publicly crucified for them? This will be the downfall of this great nation, when one cannot simply voice their opinions. Listen to all of the things that Phil has to say, without taking them out of context and you will find he is simply talking about the dislike for the SIN that homosexuality really is. He says nothing about hate, or that they should be shunned. You would not expect to air a show on the LGBT community and not hear their views, so why be surprised when you hear a vocal christian man voice his?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Since we killed our teledelusion 12 + years ago I have never seen DD but Phil's comments are milder than what the good book says, it absolutely condemns homosexuality as a deadly sin. The penalty has simply been postponed until the (today) much misunderstood Savior returns. Great commentary in this thread, guys

Burt is dead on, our lords and masters will now cut off one of their toes (DD) to spite their face

 

[Audrey]

Like the California majority? The ones that voted down gay marriage like what 3 times? That majority?

It is funny to me that when Sheriffs stand up and say "this is unconstitutional" people here praise them, and say "it is every citizen's right to do so!" However, when a federally appointed official charged with specifically addressing constitutional law says "this is unconstitutional" that person is a villain. That sounds like hypocrisy.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

The answer is that the Constitution can be easily understood by a 7 year old child and we don't need leftist revision of it by villians

Revolution against tyranny is loyalty to liberty

 

[Audrey]

The answer is that the Constitution can be easily understood by a 7 year old child and we don't need leftist revision of it by villians

A majority of current Supreme Court judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

A majority of current Supreme Court judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

The two parties are just two sides of the same Orwellian coin. I'm not a Republican

 

[Audrey]

The two parties are just two sides of the same Orwellian coin. I'm not a Republican

I did not say you were. Republicans have historically been conservative too. In this case the ones that appointed judges to the bench were Regan, G. Bush, and G.W. Bush. I believe those three men are all considered conservatives. So while the two words are not synonyms the are certainly not exclusive.

 

[Father of four]

Yet if you rap about brutalizing women and shooting cops etc., you are idolized.

Good point.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I did not say you were. Republicans have historically been conservative too. In this case the ones that appointed judges to the bench were Regan, G. Bush, and G.W. Bush. I believe those three men are all considered conservatives. So while the two words are not synonyms the are certainly not exclusive.

I don't consider any of those 3 to be genuine conservatives. A good example of one my lady and I have supported is Patrick Buchanan

 

[BVB]

i thought this thread was about Duck Dynasty, not gay rights or politics

 

[Father of four]

It is funny to me that when Sheriffs stand up and say "this is unconstitutional" people here praise them, and say "it is every citizen's right to do so!" However, when a federally appointed official charged with specifically addressing constitutional law says "this is unconstitutional" that person is a villain. That sounds like hypocrisy.

9 judges 100 years ago believe and ruled that something is constitutional, 9 judges this year believe and rule that same thing is unconstitutional, 9 judges 100 years from now believe and rule that same thing is constitutional, who is right?
Is it right for 5 people to change The Constitution with their own view?
Shouldn't The Constitution/Bill of Rights, etc... be ruled and changed by congress with the expressed views of the people?
What if the next group of judges rule something constitutional like say a one child policy, should We the People abide by it because 5-9 judges say so?

Just thinking...

 

[Father of four]

i thought this thread was about Duck Dynasty, not gay rights or politics

It is, but also about freedom of speech and the freedom from being prosecuted for saying what a person believes.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

i thought this thread was about Duck Dynasty, not gay rights or politics

You might want to check with Phil about that, he is now suspended from the show over his political and religious beliefs

 

[BVB]

ok back on track

 

[Audrey]

9 judges 100 years ago believe and ruled that something is constitutional, 9 judges this year believe and rule that same thing is constitutional, 9 judges 100 years from now believe and rule that same thing is constitutional, who is right?
Is it right for 5 people to change The Constitution with their own view?
Shouldn't The Constitution/Bill of Rights, etc... be ruled and changed by congress with the expressed views of the people?
What if the next group of judges rule something constitutional like say a one child policy, should We the People abide by it because 5-9 judges say so?

Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, which are all elected by the people. So they do represent the population from a purely logistical perspective. Perhaps on a personal level you disagree with their ruling on one thing for another, but disagreeing with something doesn't mean they're not considered representatives of the people. They're just not specifically representative of your opinion on that matter. All representatives change over time; the Constitution and our elected officials are living. The government was designed to be flexible and change with the times.

Your example is extreme.

 

[Audrey]

You might want to check with Phil about that, he is now suspended from the show over his political and religious beliefs

ok back on track

I am pro-Duck Dynasty and pro-gay rights. Freedom to believe and say what you want is totally cool for Phil, his family, and everyone. Freedom to pay taxes the same as me, and love who you want is totally cool for everyone.

 

[Norm0931]

Exactly Salted. Phil never "bashed" anyone homosexual. He said they were against his religious beliefs and he couldn't understand WHY they would do it. He stated his religious beliefs, which are not hidden from the world by the church. It's not like he called for all homosexuals to be hung in the streets or some crap. He just said he thought it was wrong and he didn't know why someone would do that. But of course like all advocacy groups they SEARCH for anything that is not 100% in line with their view and blow it way out of proportion. And for what? Now they had someone who thought what they were doing was wrong but, wouldn't be immediately hateful of them (he even states that IN the interview) to someone who has a beef against them because they tried to hurt him for what he believed. That's not justice folks, that's revenge.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

So if 9 traitors in robes tell us we have no RKBAs we just cave? I think not

On the other hand the Founders would be horrified to even hear the term "gay rights"...

 

[Father of four]

Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, which are all elected by the people. So they do represent the population from a purely logistical perspective. Perhaps on a personal level you disagree with their ruling on one thing for another, but disagreeing with something doesn't mean they're not considered representatives of the people. They're just not specifically representative of your opinion on that matter. All representatives change over time; the Constitution and our elected officials are living. The government was designed to be flexible and change with the times.

Your example is extreme.

How so extreme? Wasnt there a news story recently that stated the American Peoples trust in congress is like at an all time low? Then are the congressmen and women really doing the will of The People?