Wally wrote: I find it hypocritical that a group that for years has spoken about how society needs to be accepting of people they don't agree with can't tolerate someone they disagree with.
And there you have it.
Outrageously good
BSA?
I hate subliminal messages with my pie. 
I don't see it...
In reply to N Sperlo:
Seriously? Uh.....
SVreX wrote: The man was asked his OPINION on a subject that everyone knew where he stood. He answered with pretty straight forward tenents from his mainstream religion, as expected.
Yup. The comments on sin were totally expected. The comments about how happy minorities were prior to the civil rights movement, however, were far less expected. (..and should be a far bigger deal)
In reply to JoeyM:
Why the heck should those comments be any bigger of a deal?
Do you really think he was suggesting these people would still be happy with less than their God given rights?
Nope... Just that the people he was around were happy and very content people... and didn't need someone to tell them to be happy... and were not going to let anything keep them from it...
Today your "civil rights' movement(s) are intentionally working hard to keep people unhappy and discontent... Striving to create strife... Working to convince you a man who has said nothing which is actually racist... well of course this is some kind of hateful bigot... 
(while of course overlooking racist crap from 'party approved' sources)
I agree with Phil that the civil rights movement cost some people something...
And don't ever forget... IT damn sure wasn't frign open minded leftist democrats leading the abolitionist movement in the north nor the south... It was Christians...... 
totes mcgotes hon wrote: Seriously?
Totally not for cereal.
I didn't think so, but those emoticons relayed such a sincere sense of fear that I had to check.
ronholm wrote: ...And don't ever forget... IT damn sure wasn't frign open minded leftist democrats leading the abolitionist movement in the north nor the south... It was Christians......
Exactly what percentage of people in the 1860's would you guess would not call themselves Christians? It's pretty likely Christians dominated both parties back then.
As far as the reference to Democrats. I think you will find both parties stood against slavery.
Democratic Party Platform; June 18, 1860
Republican National Platform, 1860
I am not sure the parties had the same "slants" back then anyway, so I don't know if you can generalize them as "liberal" back then the same way you could today.
Anyway...
There really is not much of an issue here.
I have told people at work when they question why they are not allowed to discuss certain thing and (irrelevantly) bring up free speech: "You ARE free to say what you want, but the company is ALSO free to fire you for saying certain things"
And millions of people free to express their opinions about him be fired... 
It is the 'The Chicago platform' you are looking for..
Depending on how (and where) they do it and how they are employed, yes, they can be fired.
It is interesting that all those Christians would create The Chicago Platform eh?
(Unless you have some information that show that the Dems of the 1860's where not dominantly Christian, heck, they are today)
What about all those Christians in the south?
What is irritating to me is that once again a network feels the need censor someone pointlessly. There are plenty of entertainers that I enjoy whose personal ideas I disagree with, and others i agree with i don't watch because they aren't entertaining. We don't do this for any other profession but with entertainers we need to connect their view with their work. This is why pretty much everything on tv and radio sucks because everyone has to be safe and adhear to the company line. There are some really good entertainers that will never be seen by many people because they are too far to one side or the other. We all complain that every show is the same pile of garbage but what can we expect when we want everyone making them to have the same point of view.
In reply to aircooled:
Not everyone who is considered a Christian has the same views on every topic any more than all Muslims want to blow up the infidels. When you have a group that large there will be vastly different points of view.
Yes, I agree. I thought that was the point I made. I just thought it was pretty silly to imply it was Christians who where leading the abolitionist movement, when pretty much everyone was Christian back then, so they were also leading the pro slavery movement.
As you noted, Christians are just like everyone else, some are great people, some are a-holes, just like everyone else.
I misread it.
In reply to ronholm:
You really mixed those references.
Robertson made a reference to the Civil Rights Movement. That was in the 1960's.
You referenced the Abolitionist Movement. That was over a hundred years earlier.
This guy is so over-the-top and the opposite extreme, but it's kind of funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo
Wally wrote: What is irritating to me is that once again a network feels the need censor someone pointlessly. There are plenty of entertainers that I enjoy whose personal ideas I disagree with, and others i agree with i don't watch because they aren't entertaining. We don't do this for any other profession but with entertainers we need to connect their view with their work. This is why pretty much everything on tv and radio sucks because everyone has to be safe and adhear to the company line. There are some really good entertainers that will never be seen by many people because they are too far to one side or the other. We all complain that every show is the same pile of garbage but what can we expect when we want everyone making them to have the same point of view.
Please explain how A&E "censored" him.
z31maniac wrote: This guy is so over-the-top and the opposite extreme, but it's kind of funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo
I like that guy.
ronholm wrote:
This is a really important idea for the South. For anywhere really.
In reply to z31maniac:
I think it was pointed out a few pages ago they would insert fake bleeps into the programming until they told them to stop it.
z31maniac wrote: Please explain how A&E "censored" him.
If they weren't censoring what their personalities said they would be no punishment for saying things they didn't want him to say.
You'll need to log in to post.
