The Open Mat Forum

Miscellaneous => Polls => Topic started by: ocianain on December 19, 2013, 09:41:00 PM

Title: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: ocianain on December 19, 2013, 09:41:00 PM
The hirsute one said, “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

As evidenced by the above quote, Phil advanced an either or perspective, I include the additional option of equal. Is anus > < or = to vagina.


 
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on December 19, 2013, 09:47:30 PM
I voted. But with all due respect, Phil did specify vagina vs a MAN'S anus. I wouldn't want the vote to be skewed for the lack of one word.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: ocianain on December 19, 2013, 09:50:45 PM
Thanks for the input, questions modified
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Intensity guru on December 20, 2013, 12:44:20 AM
Your methodology assumes all vaginas are equal.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: spider on December 20, 2013, 07:30:06 AM
I've been called an ass and I've been called a pussy, so I'd have to say they're equal.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: ViseGrip on December 20, 2013, 11:32:50 AM
Your methodology assumes all vaginas are equal.

Are there some anuses you prefer over vaginas?
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: TobusRex on December 20, 2013, 04:09:56 PM
Your methodology assumes all vaginas are equal.

Are there some anuses you prefer over vaginas?

Sorry to butt in (hehe) here, but I'd prefer Hayden Panettiere's anus to Rosie O Donnell's vagina.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Intensity guru on December 20, 2013, 08:27:55 PM
Your methodology assumes all vaginas are equal.

Are there some anuses you prefer over vaginas?

Sorry to butt in (hehe) here, but I'd prefer Hayden Panettiere's anus to Rosie O Donnell's vagina.
and boom goes the dynamite
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: ViseGrip on December 20, 2013, 09:30:26 PM
Your methodology assumes all vaginas are equal.

Are there some anuses you prefer over vaginas?

Sorry to butt in (hehe) here, but I'd prefer Hayden Panettiere's anus to Rosie O Donnell's vagina.
in that instance I'd prefer celibacy.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: a guest on December 21, 2013, 04:45:39 PM
Your methodology assumes all vaginas are equal.

Are there some anuses you prefer over vaginas?

Sorry to butt in (hehe) here, but I'd prefer Hayden Panettiere's anus to Rosie O Donnell's vagina.

Don't upset her fiance
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on December 24, 2013, 02:02:11 AM
I see Sparky voted
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Intensity guru on December 24, 2013, 07:49:10 AM
I see Sparky voted
LOL!
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Cougar1 on December 24, 2013, 09:53:49 AM
I see Sparky voted
LOL!

That's just plain funny.  :)
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: ViseGrip on December 24, 2013, 11:34:57 AM
He'd probably do it too... just to prove his solidarity.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: ctc on December 25, 2013, 10:23:46 AM
He'd probably do it too... just to prove his solidarity.
He doesn't want to be called a "homophobe".  Looks like    Cruocified voted too.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: tpay on December 28, 2013, 04:01:58 PM
Your methodology assumes all vaginas are equal.

They are all good.....some just better than others.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: drmuscle on December 31, 2013, 10:16:59 AM
Never having experience a mans anus, my vote is pure speculation. Vagina has never given me reason to search for an alternative.However some vagina's has given me cause to search for replacement ones.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: SVV on December 31, 2013, 11:42:35 AM
Never having experience a mans anus, my vote is pure speculation. Vagina has never given me reason to search for an alternative.However some vagina's has given me cause to search for replacement ones.

The most honest answer yet.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 03, 2014, 05:46:58 AM
Well, I actually have not voted.  I find it rather silly.  But I wonder if there is a reason philly boy makes the point of saying a man's anus and not a woman's?  Would there be any difference in his mind?  Oh well, who cares.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 03, 2014, 06:20:21 PM
I can answer that for you Sparky. You see, the magazine was interested in creating controversy in order to sell more magazines. Therefore they questioned him about homosexuality. The reason he specified a man's anus is because that is what makes it a homosexual act. If you are interested in his preference of vaginal or anal sex with a woman, then just email him.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 03, 2014, 09:47:35 PM
I can answer that for you Sparky. You see, the magazine was interested in creating controversy in order to sell more magazines. Therefore they questioned him about homosexuality. The reason he specified a man's anus is because that is what makes it a homosexual act. If you are interested in his preference of vaginal or anal sex with a woman, then just email him.

True enough, the magazine recognized what a bigot the man was and knew he was to big a moron to keep his bigotry to himself so they gave him the opportunity to expose himself.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Cougar1 on January 04, 2014, 10:12:14 AM
I can answer that for you Sparky. You see, the magazine was interested in creating controversy in order to sell more magazines. Therefore they questioned him about homosexuality. The reason he specified a man's anus is because that is what makes it a homosexual act. If you are interested in his preference of vaginal or anal sex with a woman, then just email him.

True enough, the magazine recognized what a bigot the man was and knew he was to big a moron to keep his bigotry to himself so they gave him the opportunity to expose himself.

If they are just looking for bigots why haven't they interviewed you?
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 04, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
I can answer that for you Sparky. You see, the magazine was interested in creating controversy in order to sell more magazines. Therefore they questioned him about homosexuality. The reason he specified a man's anus is because that is what makes it a homosexual act. If you are interested in his preference of vaginal or anal sex with a woman, then just email him.

True enough, the magazine recognized what a bigot the man was and knew he was to big a moron to keep his bigotry to himself so they gave him the opportunity to expose himself.

If they are just looking for bigots why haven't they interviewed you?

Because I do not fit the definition of one.  I do not want to deny any human being any rights simply because they are different than me or have different opinions than me.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize I do not meet the definition.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 04, 2014, 11:45:21 AM
Phil has never kept his beliefs hidden. He tours the country as a paid speaker. He has been saying this stuff for years. The magazine was simply hitching onto his bandwagon to try to sell more magazines. I'm just glad that people who disagree with him are so polite. At least they didn't make a big deal about his personal opinion by calling him names and trying to force a boycott or anything.....
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 04, 2014, 10:21:50 PM
Phil has never kept his beliefs hidden. He tours the country as a paid speaker. He has been saying this stuff for years. The magazine was simply hitching onto his bandwagon to try to sell more magazines. I'm just glad that people who disagree with him are so polite. At least they didn't make a big deal about his personal opinion by calling him names and trying to force a boycott or anything.....

You are correct, all they did was point out that he is a hateful bigot.  Telling the truth is not calling people names, it is speaking the truth and everybody should be allowed to do that.  And anyone who want to boycott has the right to do that to.  I can guarantee that A&E lost hundreds of thousands of watchers by putting the bigot back on the air.  For their financial future let us hope their are more bigots around to keep them solvent.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 04, 2014, 10:25:41 PM
Wow. In the same sentence as saying you don't call him names, you also called him a hateful bigot. I challenge you to quote one hateful thing he said.

You are also clearly wrong about anyone losing money by keeping him on board. Money is the only reason they took him back.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 05, 2014, 01:49:07 AM
Wow. In the same sentence as saying you don't call him names, you also called him a hateful bigot. I challenge you to quote one hateful thing he said.

You are also clearly wrong about anyone losing money by keeping him on board. Money is the only reason they took him back.

I may be wrong about the money, it is way way too early to tell.

Telling the truth about a person is not calling them names.  I can prove he has said hateful and bigoted things with his own quotes.  I will do that later when I have time.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 05, 2014, 09:27:34 AM


Hateful word for the moron himself.

Quote
"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." -- Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.

"Why do they murder and why do they hate us? Because all of them ... 80 years of history, they all want to conquer the world, they all rejected Jesus and they're all famous for murder. Nazis, Shintoists, Communists and the Mohammedists. Every one of them the same way." -- Preaching at Hillsboro Church of Christ in El Dorado, Ark., in 2008.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 05, 2014, 05:52:59 PM
I thought you just said that speaking the truth is not hatred. He described what people did and the punishment for it. Where is the hatred?
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Cougar1 on January 05, 2014, 07:10:46 PM
I thought you just said that speaking the truth is not hatred. He described what people did and the punishment for it. Where is the hatred?

LOL!! That depends on which version of the truth you're speaking.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 05, 2014, 10:47:58 PM
I thought you just said that speaking the truth is not hatred. He described what people did and the punishment for it. Where is the hatred?

No he did not say a thing about the punishments for it.  He said hateful things about their supposed (invented) acts in addition to being gay such as being murderers, that is not the truth that is a lie the exact opposite of the truth, being full of envy, oh really does he know them, no that is another lie, being insolent and arrogant God haters, again does he know them, many if not most of them are Christians and love God, another lie.  So on and so forth.  He is a hateful bigot and you have no argument against that truth so I guess you and cougar are just giving up and not talking about the other hateful bigoted things he said
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 07, 2014, 07:44:56 PM
Don't say I gave up!!!!! I never said that!!!! Prove it!!!! You just attacked me!!!!

Haha! Wow Sparky. Now I know why you do that. It is kind of fun.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 07, 2014, 09:17:16 PM
Don't say I gave up!!!!! I never said that!!!! Prove it!!!! You just attacked me!!!!

Haha! Wow Sparky. Now I know why you do that. It is kind of fun.

You are not very good at it though head in ass.  I never said anything about you saying you quit.  I was describing your apparent unwillingness to try to defend Phil Robertson's hate filled words.  I was talking about behavior not a statement.  Your behavior in not defending them and ignoring them is a sign of conceding defeat.  I await your defense of the moron's words since you claim you are not giving up.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 07, 2014, 09:19:02 PM
You said I gave up. How is that different from saying I quit?
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 07, 2014, 09:25:28 PM
You also only quoted a partial piece. Who was he specifically talking about? Care to provide the full speech? Because he definitely said that they recieved their punishment. But when I said thats what he said, you denied it. So, please provide the entire link to the speech so it can be put in perspective. I know you have the link. I'm guessing that you didn't provide it already because you know he's right.

So prove me wrong and provide the link. Or admit defeat and tell me to look it up myself.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 07, 2014, 09:52:22 PM
You also only quoted a partial piece. Who was he specifically talking about? Care to provide the full speech? Because he definitely said that they recieved their punishment. But when I said thats what he said, you denied it. So, please provide the entire link to the speech so it can be put in perspective. I know you have the link. I'm guessing that you didn't provide it already because you know he's right.

So prove me wrong and provide the link. Or admit defeat and tell me to look it up myself.

No I did not deny that was what he said.  He did say they received their punishment then he proceeded to describe them as murderers, full of envy strife and hatred, insolent, arrogant God haters.  All these things he says have nothing to do with punishment but have only to do with the people themselves.  All of which by the way are hate filled lies.  You guy find the entire speech, I watched the speech and it is a bunch of worthless Bible talk which has nothing to do with the line about gays that I pulled out of it.    How can I admit defeat when I won and you lost?  He made hateful comments about people based simply on them being different than he is.  He is a bigot pure and simple and you can deny it but you just look foolish doing so.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 07, 2014, 10:04:45 PM
You said I gave up. How is that different from saying I quit?

Right, I talked about an act you did, not what you said.  Now you get it.  By refusing to defend his hateful word and instead pointing to something else he said just before he made disparaging comments about their character, you proved you had no defense for his hateful words and therefore must have been conceding defeat. 
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 07, 2014, 10:07:57 PM
So you found the speech on line but can't provide the link? That's piss poor. In fact, I'm going to assume that you found it on one of your favorite God hating sites and they only provided a portion for you.

Again, you are the one who is saying this is true so provide the link.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 07, 2014, 10:15:34 PM
You also only quoted a partial piece. Who was he specifically talking about? Care to provide the full speech? Because he definitely said that they recieved their punishment. But when I said thats what he said, you denied it. So, please provide the entire link to the speech so it can be put in perspective. I know you have the link. I'm guessing that you didn't provide it already because you know he's right.

So prove me wrong and provide the link. Or admit defeat and tell me to look it up myself.

No I did not deny that was what he said.  He did say they received their punishment then he proceeded to describe them as murderers, full of envy strife and hatred, insolent, arrogant God haters.  All these things he says have nothing to do with punishment but have only to do with the people themselves.  All of which by the way are hate filled lies.  You guy find the entire speech, I watched the speech and it is a bunch of worthless Bible talk which has nothing to do with the line about gays that I pulled out of it.    How can I admit defeat when I won and you lost?  He made hateful comments about people based simply on them being different than he is.  He is a bigot pure and simple and you can deny it but you just look foolish doing so.

Hey genius, I just quoted you saying that you "watched THE speech" but you quoted two different speeches. So either provide a link to both so we can get the context or........keep being Sparky and live in that fantasy world where no one can outsmart you. (BTW - I love it when you post like you're a genius talking to minions. It's hilarious)
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 07, 2014, 10:16:07 PM
So you found the speech on line but can't provide the link? That's piss poor. In fact, I'm going to assume that you found it on one of your favorite God hating sites and they only provided a portion for you.

Again, you are the one who is saying this is true so provide the link.

Look it up yourself, I am not your lackey here to prove your point.  He said every word that I wrote.  They are an exact quotes.  I watched the entire thing myself.  He is a moron and I cannot believe people actually pay the dumbshit to speak.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 07, 2014, 10:18:04 PM
You also only quoted a partial piece. Who was he specifically talking about? Care to provide the full speech? Because he definitely said that they recieved their punishment. But when I said thats what he said, you denied it. So, please provide the entire link to the speech so it can be put in perspective. I know you have the link. I'm guessing that you didn't provide it already because you know he's right.

So prove me wrong and provide the link. Or admit defeat and tell me to look it up myself.

No I did not deny that was what he said.  He did say they received their punishment then he proceeded to describe them as murderers, full of envy strife and hatred, insolent, arrogant God haters.  All these things he says have nothing to do with punishment but have only to do with the people themselves.  All of which by the way are hate filled lies.  You guy find the entire speech, I watched the speech and it is a bunch of worthless Bible talk which has nothing to do with the line about gays that I pulled out of it.    How can I admit defeat when I won and you lost?  He made hateful comments about people based simply on them being different than he is.  He is a bigot pure and simple and you can deny it but you just look foolish doing so.

Hey genius, I just quoted you saying that you "watched THE speech" but you quoted two different speeches. So either provide a link to both so we can get the context or........keep being Sparky and live in that fantasy world where no one can outsmart you. (BTW - I love it when you post like you're a genius talking to minions. It's hilarious)

I am not doing your work for you.  These are exact quotes and it is clear what he said.  There is no out of context misinterpretation going on here.  But I see you have no defense for his word.  You concede then I take it that he is in fact a hate filled bigot.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 07, 2014, 10:29:29 PM
You won't provide them because you can't. I'm sure I could find the speeches. The dude is a paid speaker. But I don't believe for a minute that you listened to them and then took the time to type out what he said, stamp the speech and date at the end, and then somehow make it look like you just copy and pasted from another site.

You did not do that. No one believes you did that. It's illogical. You simply copy and pasted those things from another site. So provide the site. Pleasebdon't make yourself look dumber. I stick up for you. Don't let me down.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 07, 2014, 11:10:24 PM
You won't provide them because you can't. I'm sure I could find the speeches. The dude is a paid speaker. But I don't believe for a minute that you listened to them and then took the time to type out what he said, stamp the speech and date at the end, and then somehow make it look like you just copy and pasted from another site.

You did not do that. No one believes you did that. It's illogical. You simply copy and pasted those things from another site. So provide the site. Pleasebdon't make yourself look dumber. I stick up for you. Don't let me down.

Head in ass, where did you see me say I typed out the quotes?  I did not, so I am glad you do not believe I did that because I did not.  I found those two quotes on another site.  But----I DID listen to both sermons this stupid shit bigot gave.  And they are in those speeches for a fact.  The only one looking stupid here is you and you are doing a good job of doing that to yourself.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 07, 2014, 11:12:35 PM
BTW, I said you have to do your own work.  Please show me you are not incompetent and lazy too.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 10, 2014, 06:23:43 PM
So what you're saying is that it was taken from one of your God hating sites and they did take it out of context. I have zero doubt that you personally took things out of context because you do it all the time. I'm glad you found a site that does the same thing. You are living proof that if you search the net long enough, someone will agree with you.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 10, 2014, 10:51:50 PM
So what you're saying is that it was taken from one of your God hating sites and they did take it out of context. I have zero doubt that you personally took things out of context because you do it all the time. I'm glad you found a site that does the same thing. You are living proof that if you search the net long enough, someone will agree with you.

Nope actually I got both bullshit sermons from pro-religious sites.  Listen to them yourself.  The quotes are irrefutable and exact.  So I take it you have no defense for the hateful words he spoke.  I did not think you would.  It would be like trying to defend the hateful anti-Semitic words of Hitler.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 11, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
I've listened to several of his speeches. Not sure if it was these two in particular but he says pretty much the same thing in all of them. There is nothing hateful about calling a wrong a wrong. And since you still refuse to provide the site that took portions of his speech and made them look bad because the entire context isn't there, I am correct in assuming that you know the difference.

I'm not sure what it is with you and anyone who believes in God. But you clearly have a problem with someone believing in right and wrong. It doesn't mean you're hateful if you point out a wrong. I'm sure you did it a million times when raising your kids. We do not all have to accept every behavior. Get over it. And step back and read some of your comments on here. You are known to be one of the more hateful people who post. You need to get a grip and relax. You are easily provoked to name calling. I've never called you a name and have stuck up for you several times. Yet you call me head in ass.

I know you are just a troll trying to get people going, that's why I love your posts. But sometimes even you go too far.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 11, 2014, 08:11:31 PM
I've listened to several of his speeches. Not sure if it was these two in particular but he says pretty much the same thing in all of them. There is nothing hateful about calling a wrong a wrong. And since you still refuse to provide the site that took portions of his speech and made them look bad because the entire context isn't there, I am correct in assuming that you know the difference.

I'm not sure what it is with you and anyone who believes in God. But you clearly have a problem with someone believing in right and wrong. It doesn't mean you're hateful if you point out a wrong. I'm sure you did it a million times when raising your kids. We do not all have to accept every behavior. Get over it. And step back and read some of your comments on here. You are known to be one of the more hateful people who post. You need to get a grip and relax. You are easily provoked to name calling. I've never called you a name and have stuck up for you several times. Yet you call me head in ass.

I know you are just a troll trying to get people going, that's why I love your posts. But sometimes even you go too far.

Defend the quotes I posted.  You have made no attempt so I take it you realize how hateful and despicable they are.  You just cannot bring yourself to admit it.  That is OK, it is hard to see your world view repudiated by the whole civilized world.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 11, 2014, 08:26:21 PM
OK head n arm, I will refrain for the time being from calling you head in ass and see if you can extricate your head long enough to give me a legitimate answer.  How is calling a gay person who has never killed a single person, and likely not even an animal of any sort a murderer, not a hateful lie?  How is calling a devout Christian gay person who regularly attends church and believes in Jesus a God hater, not a hateful lie?  I would like to see you defend these claims about people who have done nothing wrong more than love someone that Phil does not agree they should love?

Show me you are an honest person and try to answer that one respectfully.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 11, 2014, 08:59:45 PM
Like I said. I can't defend or refute something if I don't get the entire context. If you would simply post the site where you got the quotes, you would get your answer one way or the other. Your refusal to do so tells me that you are hiding something.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 11, 2014, 09:21:40 PM
Like I said. I can't defend or refute something if I don't get the entire context. If you would simply post the site where you got the quotes, you would get your answer one way or the other. Your refusal to do so tells me that you are hiding something.

As I said you have your head up you ass if you cannot see what he said.  There is no missing context.  He said every gay person is a murderer and god hater.   Slow witted indeed.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 11, 2014, 10:14:24 PM
Like I said. I can't defend or refute something if I don't get the entire context. If you would simply post the site where you got the quotes, you would get your answer one way or the other. Your refusal to do so tells me that you are hiding something.

As I said you have your head up you ass if you cannot see what he said.  There is no missing context.  He said every gay person is a murderer and god hater.   Slow witted indeed.

Now you're just simply lying. Nowhere in any quote you provided did he say every gay person is a murderer. In fact, the quotes begin with him saying "they". I have no idea who "they" are because you refuse to post the entire transcript from this mysterious site.

My guess is that the "they" he is referring to are all people who have turned from God. But if you want to take it out of context and only provide a partial piece of the speech then you can make up who "they" is.

Like I've said before. The guy talks about all who have turned from God and he doesn't hide that. The fact that gays are so conceited to think he is speaking only about them is pathetic. They (the gays) need to get over themselves. There are other people in the world.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 11, 2014, 11:09:59 PM
Like I said. I can't defend or refute something if I don't get the entire context. If you would simply post the site where you got the quotes, you would get your answer one way or the other. Your refusal to do so tells me that you are hiding something.

As I said you have your head up you ass if you cannot see what he said.  There is no missing context.  He said every gay person is a murderer and god hater.   Slow witted indeed.

Now you're just simply lying. Nowhere in any quote you provided did he say every gay person is a murderer. In fact, the quotes begin with him saying "they". I have no idea who "they" are because you refuse to post the entire transcript from this mysterious site.

My guess is that the "they" he is referring to are all people who have turned from God. But if you want to take it out of context and only provide a partial piece of the speech then you can make up who "they" is.

Like I've said before. The guy talks about all who have turned from God and he doesn't hide that. The fact that gays are so conceited to think he is speaking only about them is pathetic. They (the gays) need to get over themselves. There are other people in the world.

How am I lying head in ass.  I posted and exact quote.  Here it is again with commentary.

Quote
"Women with women. Men with men. ( he is clearly talking about Gays in this paragraph so everything that follows refers to all men who lay with men and all women who lay with women) They (again they are the gays) committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're (again they are the gays, all of them) full of murder (um, if you are full of murder, you are a murderer), envy, strife, hatred. They (again they are the gays, all of them) are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." -- Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.

Again this comes out of a single paragraph in which Phil the bigot Robertson is talking about Gay people, nobody else.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 12, 2014, 12:41:21 PM
Well since you didn't provide the sentence or two before that, I am assuming he was talking about everyone who turned from God. Then he gave examples which included homosexuals and also murderers. That is not saying they are the same thing. It is different examples of how people turn from God.

Like I've said before. Taken out of context this statement can mean what you say it means. Provide the entire context and you can see that he isn't calling gays murderers. And don't think I don't know what you're trying to do. It's obvious. You can fool some of the people but not all of the people.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 12, 2014, 06:36:55 PM
Well since you didn't provide the sentence or two before that, I am assuming he was talking about everyone who turned from God. Then he gave examples which included homosexuals and also murderers. That is not saying they are the same thing. It is different examples of how people turn from God.

Like I've said before. Taken out of context this statement can mean what you say it means. Provide the entire context and you can see that he isn't calling gays murderers. And don't think I don't know what you're trying to do. It's obvious. You can fool some of the people but not all of the people.

You really undeniably are mentally deficient.  I provided an entire paragraph, there were no sentences left out of the paragraph.  The entire paragraph is about gays.  Everytime he says they, he is referring to the subject of the entire paragraph gays.  If you want to continue to act stupid and claim otherwise that is your problem.  Everyone sees you are either too stupid to be able to understand and interpret English or you are one of those typical dishonest Christians who lie with ever fiber of your being to try to defend other people who believe the nonsense you do.  Whichever it is you look really really bad. 
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 12, 2014, 07:37:46 PM
For sentences even before the paragraph I posted he was talking about gays.  Let's see how you dishonestly twist this to make those words not about gays oh mentally deficient and dishonest one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5VmM4pRhM#t=1134
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 15, 2014, 08:30:46 PM
Dude, you are getting way too weird. Nothing you say is making any sense. You're just saying half truths and trying to fool me into believing what you say. I'm done with the Duck Dynasty with you. It used to be fun but now I think you started believing your own hate.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 15, 2014, 08:36:54 PM
Ignore it when shown to be wrong.  Good strategy head up ass.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: head n arm on January 15, 2014, 08:40:56 PM
Oohhh! Good one!
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 15, 2014, 08:43:34 PM
Oohhh! Good one!

No, no you are the one with the good one head up ass.  What a great strategy to ignore it when you were proven wrong.  Great tactic.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 16, 2014, 07:07:20 PM
chirp chirp chirp chirp

I guess I had it pegged, no defense for the indefensible.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Cougar1 on January 17, 2014, 10:20:11 AM
Is this the evolution thread?
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: ViseGrip on January 17, 2014, 03:01:08 PM
Is this the evolution thread?

No but is suffers from the same pollutant.

No, no you are the one with the good one head up ass.  What a great strategy to ignore it when you were proven wrong.  Great tactic.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Ray Brinzer on January 17, 2014, 03:12:28 PM
Ignore it when shown to be wrong.  Good strategy head up ass.

Okay, sparky, you need to pull it way back.  The "no personal attacks" rule still holds, not to mention the general prohibition on profanity.  No action, here, but cut it out.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: ctc on January 17, 2014, 05:09:06 PM
Ignore it when shown to be wrong.  Good strategy head up ass.

Okay, sparky, you need to pull it way back.  The "no personal attacks" rule still holds, not to mention the general prohibition on profanity.  No action, here, but cut it out.
We will forever esteem you Ray as the greatest ever if you would just purge the forum of the personal attack troll.   ;D
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Seth_Brundle on January 18, 2014, 05:51:22 AM
Well since you didn't provide the sentence or two before that, I am assuming he was talking about everyone who turned from God. Then he gave examples which included homosexuals and also murderers. That is not saying they are the same thing. It is different examples of how people turn from God.

Like I've said before. Taken out of context this statement can mean what you say it means. Provide the entire context and you can see that he isn't calling gays murderers. And don't think I don't know what you're trying to do. It's obvious. You can fool some of the people but not all of the people.


you are trying to have an intellectual conversation with a man who is intellectually dishonest.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: coachsparky on January 18, 2014, 08:27:01 AM
Well since you didn't provide the sentence or two before that, I am assuming he was talking about everyone who turned from God. Then he gave examples which included homosexuals and also murderers. That is not saying they are the same thing. It is different examples of how people turn from God.

Like I've said before. Taken out of context this statement can mean what you say it means. Provide the entire context and you can see that he isn't calling gays murderers. And don't think I don't know what you're trying to do. It's obvious. You can fool some of the people but not all of the people.


you are trying to have an intellectual conversation with a man who is intellectually dishonest.

Not surprised to see someone like seth, extreme right wing nut, make such a claim.  Unfortunately for him, it is a unsubstantiated opinion with no facts to back it up.  In fact, the facts show the opposite, complete intellectual consistency and honesty.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: heelpick on March 07, 2014, 05:40:17 PM
Duck Dynasty is a stupic show, but not because of Phil.  Like most all "reality" shows I find them to be an insult to my intelligence.
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: Intensity guru on March 07, 2014, 10:00:13 PM
Duck danasty is less insulting than juvenile political sloganeering like "restore America" and "hope and change."
Title: Re: Regarding The Duck Dynasty Controversy
Post by: none on March 18, 2014, 10:08:42 PM
Duck Dynasty is a stupic show, but not because of Phil.  Like most all "reality" shows I find them to be an insult to my intelligence.

+1

I can honestly say I have never watched a full episode of "reality" TV.