It makes me very sad that this kind of thing happens periodically and there's always a bunch of people screaming "1st Amendment! Free speech!"
I never thought it was that complicated of a thig to understand, that this had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the first amendment.
No Duck Dynasty thread?
Re: No Duck Dynasty thread?
by Ben Huh » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:30 pm
..."if the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of a divine reward, then brother, that person is a piece of shit."
-
Ben Huh - Senator
- Posts: 1822
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:07 pm
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 433 times
- Been thanked: 144 times
- Political Leaning: Slightly Liberal
Re: No Duck Dynasty thread?
by John Galt » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:19 pm
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven’t been cynical enough.
My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven’t been cynical enough.
-
John Galt - Technical Admin
- Posts: 14869
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
- Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 719 times
- Been thanked: 1497 times
- Political Leaning: Classic Liberal
Re: No Duck Dynasty thread?
by Bauce » Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:48 am
- These users thanked the author Bauce for the post:
- cool_chick
-
Bauce - Banned
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:07 am
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 152 times
- Been thanked: 175 times
Re: No Duck Dynasty thread?
by cool_chick » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:19 pm
-
cool_chick - VIP
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:34 pm
- Location: NW Indiana
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 278 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
Re: No Duck Dynasty thread?
by Leviathan » Sun Dec 22, 2013 9:37 pm
You guys realize AE is going to put them right back on the air, right? 90% of their viewing demographic probably agrees with all his comments. Already a few retailers who removed their duck dynasty merchandise have apologized for doing so and retuned them to shelves.
Also, i don't get the whole line of reasoning that "this isn't a first amendment issue". Like I said, the guy is a redneck hunter, did you think he wasn't racist or homophobic? Or are you just upset because he said it aloud? I'd much rather have people expressing their true believes, even if unpopular, than have then keep it to themselves but have the exact same viewpoint. The devil you know is always better than the devil you don't. Of course this isn't technically a first amendment issue, but it's clearly against the spirit of the amendment when you ignore this obvious racist/homophobe for years until he is stupid enough to put it i writing. You aren't punishing hi for his views, we all knew exactly what his views were. You are punishing him for saying it aloud, punishing him for the SPEECH and not the views he holds. its clearly against the spirit of the amendment.
But I suppose you just want this guy to apologize and not say stuff like that anymore? As if that will do a damn thing to solve the underlying bigotry? In fact, you probably are just entrenching the views of half the country when you pounce on them for any misstatement. Libs are annoying and go about these things in retarded and obnoxious ways.
Also, i don't get the whole line of reasoning that "this isn't a first amendment issue". Like I said, the guy is a redneck hunter, did you think he wasn't racist or homophobic? Or are you just upset because he said it aloud? I'd much rather have people expressing their true believes, even if unpopular, than have then keep it to themselves but have the exact same viewpoint. The devil you know is always better than the devil you don't. Of course this isn't technically a first amendment issue, but it's clearly against the spirit of the amendment when you ignore this obvious racist/homophobe for years until he is stupid enough to put it i writing. You aren't punishing hi for his views, we all knew exactly what his views were. You are punishing him for saying it aloud, punishing him for the SPEECH and not the views he holds. its clearly against the spirit of the amendment.
But I suppose you just want this guy to apologize and not say stuff like that anymore? As if that will do a damn thing to solve the underlying bigotry? In fact, you probably are just entrenching the views of half the country when you pounce on them for any misstatement. Libs are annoying and go about these things in retarded and obnoxious ways.
"The President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year..." - 50 U.S.C. § 1802
-
Leviathan - Banned
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:45 am
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 260 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
- Political Leaning: Progressive
Re: No Duck Dynasty thread?
by Leviathan » Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:10 pm
"The President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year..." - 50 U.S.C. § 1802
-
Leviathan - Banned
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:45 am
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 260 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
- Political Leaning: Progressive
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests