Obama defends "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson

wow.

If he is then I have to give him props for it because that whole thing is just ridiculous.
 
Thats it!

Piss on the fire and call the dogs!

This hunting trip is done.
 
Congrats, FGB and lovecraft68: you failed the test.

Just goes to prove: some people will believe anything you post, as long as it's what they want to see.

Had this been something pro-Liberal, I would've gotten: "Source?"

LOL! :cool:
 
Congrats, FGB and lovecraft68: you failed the test.

Just goes to prove: some people will believe anything you post, as long as it's what they want to see.

Had this been something pro-Liberal, I would've gotten: "Source?"

LOL! :cool:


The converse of that is also true.
 
I once heard him say, "I disagree with what he said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

He may have been talking about something else.
 
The converse of that is also true.

GB conservatives are far more likely than their liberal counterparts to post or respond to some B.S. that's been debunked by snopes, sent in a chain email, or authored by The Onion as if it were gospel.

Exhibit EEE is this thread.
 
GB conservatives are far more likely than their liberal counterparts to post or respond to some B.S. that's been debunked by snopes, sent in a chain email, or authored by The Onion as if it were gospel.

Exhibit EEE is this thread.

I think everybody likes to sing in the choir.

The problem with liberal ideas is they can never be completely debunked because the liberal industrial complex rapidly cranks out vacous "publish or perish) papers everyday supporting their positions.

Near is I can tell every liberal counterargument too conservative position is "cite?" And assuming that one is dumb enough to actually provide them with someone else's logical words printed on paper or housed online they always don't denigrate the source. Never the substance of the argument, just "prove it" by the incidence of concurrance to your point of view not the soundness of the position itself.

To shore up a liberal argument, any place on the internet with a pundit writing words that support their position is considered proof.

As I see it just depends on what side of the glass that you're throwing rocks from. All pretty pointless nearest I can tell I haven't seen anybody persuaded on anything ever on this board.

So either the Liberals really are always right. Or the Conservatives are always right or from time to time they're both wrong.
 
Last edited:
The problem with liberal ideas is they can never be completely debunked because the liberal industrial complex rapidly cranks out papers everyday supporting their positions.

Have you never heard of the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc., etc.?
 
Have you never heard of the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc., etc.?

My point EXACTLY. Tell me that you're going to believe one word regardless of how scholarly the paper is from those particular organizations because they are self-admitedly conservatively driven and funded.

On the other hand point to a single instance where you disbelieve a liberal position they came out of any of the many state indocrination centers known as major universities?

And do you really believe that the Heritage in Kato foundations can possibly keep up with the sheer volume of ignorance?

Just because there are a handful of conservative think tanks out there, It's absolutely silly to suggest that the vast volume of the crap you cite doesn't come from hard left wing ideologues.
 
Last edited:
Near is I can tell every liberal counterargument too conservative position is "cite?" And assuming that one is dumb enough to actually provide them with someone else's logical words printed on paper or housed online they always don't denigrate the source. Never the substance of the argument, just "prove it" by the incidence of concurrance to your point of view not the soundness of the position itself.

"Cite" is a request for proof of a source - any source. It's a logical first step towards responding with a reasonable debate. Any one worth their salt either offers the source up front, or is ready to provide it at a drop of a hat.

You are attempting to be a bullshit artist. Not bad, but still transparent.
 
"Cite" is a request for proof of a source - any source. It's a logical first step towards responding with a reasonable debate. Any one worth their salt either offers the source up front, or is ready to provide it at a drop of a hat.

You are attempting to be a bullshit artist. Not bad, but still transparent.

You're gonna get considerable push back from Query Dearie, s/he likes to make lotsa grandiose claims but very very few of 'em seem to be grounded in the reality-based world.

S/he seems to be enamored with The Way Things Ought To Be™.
 
You're gonna get considerable push back from Query Dearie, s/he likes to make lotsa grandiose claims but very very few of 'em seem to be grounded in the reality-based world.

It's the "say a ton, little substance" neo-Con approach.

They come and go around here. It'll get bored eventually.
 
People that are criticizing Phil are doing so because of the MESSAGE, not saying he didn't have the RIGHT to be a hiding-behind-the-Bible homophobic racist.

The First Amendment gives him the right to be an asshole.
It does not guarantee him from criticism or being suspended from a television network.
 
People that are criticizing Phil are doing so because of the MESSAGE, not saying he didn't have the RIGHT to be a hiding-behind-the-Bible homophobic racist.

The First Amendment gives him the right to be an asshole.
It does not guarantee him from criticism or being suspended from a television network.

Exactly what many (including me) have been saying all along.

You can say (just about) anything you want. Fire in a crowded theater and the like excepted. You have that freedom, and the rest of us have the freedom to call you a bigoted asshole for it. If it reflects badly on your employer, they have the freedom to fire your ass if they want for splattering their image with your ignorant bullshit.
 
People that are criticizing Phil are doing so because of the MESSAGE, not saying he didn't have the RIGHT to be a hiding-behind-the-Bible homophobic racist.

The First Amendment gives him the right to be an asshole.
It does not guarantee him from criticism or being suspended from a television network.

Good lord. Your internets username is quite apt indeed.

*bows courteously*

I tried to explain that very thing and I used approximately 1,000 more words than you did to accomplish the same in a far messier way.
 
Back
Top