• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Sarah Palin Admits She Didn’t Read Duck Dynasty Interview Before Commenting On It

Sarah-Palin-at-Podium

You can’t tell me that anyone is surprised by this:

Turns out Sarah Palin, who has been one of Duck Dynasty’s biggest defenders, hasn’t actually read the GQ interview that includes cast member Phil Robertson’s controversial comments on homosexuality and other subjects.

When pressed by Fox News host Greta Van Susteren whether the language Robertson used when talking about his opposition to homosexuality was graphic and offensive, Palin admitted she didn’t know what Robertson had said.

“I haven’t read the article. I don’t know exactly how he said it,” Palin said Monday on Fox News’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”

After the GQ interview was published, Palin immediately came to Robertson’s defense by posting a statement on Facebook saying it was an issue of free speech and defended his comments in a TV appearance with Sean Hannity.

As with many thing, The Simpsons saw this one coming

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. KM says:

    I know I shouldn’t be surprised but…. *headdesk*

    Anything to scream ’bout liberals, right? Just because he’s conservative and religious means the people objecting to his statements must be godless evil suppressors. Why should I know what he said – liberals are complaining so they must be wrong! First Amendment FTW!

    Screw actually understanding a situation, I have an Opinion and thus must Speak!!

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1

  2. al-Ameda says:

    When pressed by Fox News host Greta Van Susteren whether the language Robertson used when talking about his opposition to homosexuality was graphic and offensive, Palin admitted she didn’t know what Robertson had said.

    “I haven’t read the article. I don’t know exactly how he said it,” Palin said Monday on Fox News’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”

    Honestly, I don’t understand why Democrats are so hard on Palin – it’s unfair.

    She is the gift that keeps on giving – to comedians.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2

  3. rudderpedals says:

    Dodged a bullet, we did.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  4. Paul L. says:

    I didn’t read the article but from the Progressive outrage machine I learned that preferring heterosexual sex over homosexual sex is now Hate Speech/Bigotry.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 38

  5. CSK says:

    Of course she didn’t take the ten minutes to read it. She had to turn the spotlight on herself as soon as possible. She has a book to sell, you know.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1

  6. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    So what? Apparently neither did most of the people “outraged” over the “hate speech.”

    Robertson paraphrased — accurately — the Bible’s teachings about homosexual behavior. He then said he believed and accepted it, and added his own reasons for not personally finding it appealing.

    And then he followed it up with God’s instructions to Man for dealing with sinners.

    I have a big problem with those who quote religious tenets and call for them to be enforced by law.

    I have a slightly less big problem with those who quote religious tenets and call for them to be enforced by individuals.

    I have no problem with those who quote religious tenets, but don’t include a call for any kind of action.

    I like those who quote religious tenets, and then explicitly declare they do not believe they should be enforced. Whether or not I agree with those tenets.

    Robertson fell firmly into that last category. He said that God tells Christians to spread the word, but to NOT judge sinners, only to pray for them. God is quite clear that it is His sole prerogative to punish sin, not Man’s. That’s what “hate the sin, but love the sinner” is all about.

    But back to the topic… what Palin should have said was “I’m not certain exactly what Phil said, but it’s clear the reporter acted stupidly.”

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 31

  7. Gustopher says:

    I love Sarah Palin, and I hope her book does very well. She should “write” another one soon.

    Every dollar she gets… that’s one less dollar that the far right rubes can use to usefully oppose things that I care about. She really is one of my favorite people.

    I would not, however, want to be stuck in an elevator with her.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

  8. CSK says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Jenos, I don’t think the reporter acted stupidly. He reported what Robertson said, apparently accurately, since Robertson hasn’t, as far as I know, claimed to have been misquoted.

    The ironic thing is that, before Palin shot off her Tweet, the Robertson fans who read the article seemed to have enjoyed it. And, if you read the whole article, as I did, Magary seems to have liked Robertson and enjoyed spending time with him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

  9. PJ says:

    ALL LIES!

    Sarah Palain reads ALL the magazines.
    Sarah Palin reads ALL the interviews.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

  10. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @CSK: Jenos, I don’t think the reporter acted stupidly.

    Sorry, that was an allusion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13

  11. michael reynolds says:

    One of the side benefits of Palin is that all the giddy Palinites are still apparently obligated to leap to her defense and rationalize every idiot remark of hers. It’s fun watching the clueless twist themselves into pretzel shapes in support of their once-future queen.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2

  12. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Paul L.: Me thinks you need to go back to 3rd grade and take “Remedial English”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  13. anjin-San says:

    @ jenos

    In my religion, killing ducks is more or less a sin.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  14. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-San: In my religion, killing ducks is more or less a sin.

    And by my previously-asserted standard, I have no problem with that.

    However, having had my car crapped on by ducks more often than I care to think about, I personally find duck-killing almost a commandment. They’re about half a step up from pigeons in my book…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14

  15. CSK says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I get the allusion, but it only works if you’re poking holes in Palin’s cloud of unknowing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  16. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @CSK: Actually, it works just fine on the basis of “people saying things before they have confirmed the relevant facts.” It only doesn’t work for Obama worshippers, who get all hissy when you point out that his “feet of clay” go way, way above his ankles.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13

  17. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: I try to imagine a single person anywhere in the world who could spare one neuron to care about what you do or do not have a problem with, but despite making a tidy living from my imagination for several decades, I seem to have reached its limit here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  18. An Interested Party says:

    “…the reporter acted stupidly.”

    Oh yes, of course, much like how Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson acted “stupidly” when they interviewed Sarah Palin…it was just all their fault that she couldn’t name any newspapers she supposedly read nor could she tell anyone anything about the Bush Doctrine…

    Meanwhile, Robertson said other offensive things that had nothing to do with homosexuality…what’s most amusing about these Duck people is how unreal their “reality” show really is…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  19. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Since you didn’t read the article … you forget again that Robertson hit all the bases, with bigoted comments on race, other religions, and the sex thing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  20. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @An Interested Party: You do realize, moron, that the remark of mine was an allusion to a particularly stupid Obama quote, and your comments were rendered a non sequitur over 2.5 hours before you blithered all over the place?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

  21. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: You’ve thoroughly established that you’re dumb in the figurative, “not very smart” sense. Someday you will extend that into the literal, “unable to speak” sense, and everyone will be grateful.

    For everyone else: I had to define the two meanings of “dumb” because I really don’t think wr could understand them from the context.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  22. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    Well, we already know that people do not like you, and it’s my guess that ducks, pigeons, and other animals like you even less. They tend to be sensitive to bad vibes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  23. anjin-san says:

    You’ve thoroughly established that you’re dumb in the figurative, “not very smart” sense. Someday you will extend that into the literal, “unable to speak” sense, and everyone will be grateful.

    If any of you psych students out there need a textbook case of projection, look no further :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  24. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: with bigoted comments on race, other religions, and the sex thing.

    I actually did read the article, and didn’t see a damned thing objectionable in anything he said. I don’t agree with all of them, but he’s got every right to hold them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13

  25. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Doug, I feel I should apologize. One again I’ve given The Usual Gang Of Idiots the excuse they need to avoid talking about the actual topic at hand, and played along with their standard pig-pile on insulting me. I really should just ignore the turds, but I’m not quite that strong enough.

    On topic myself… I’m sorry you haven’t gotten over your crush on Sarah Palin. Dude, she’s married. No matter how many times you rhetorically put her pigtails in the inkwell, she ain’t gonna give you the time of day.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

  26. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Let’s see… 12 comments since I made my first one on this thread, and three are nothing but personal insults to me, nothing on the topic at hand. That’s quite a flattering percentage.

    Of course, that’s only judging by quantity, not quality. On that scale, it’s typically and depressingly stupid and inane. However, that’s entirely as expected from annie and wr.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  27. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    I will let you in on something – I’ve loved two women in my life, & they are both named Anne. I’m married to one, and still great friends with the other.

    “Annie” kind of makes me smile every time I see it here. Ironic that the only time you make anyone smile on OTB is by accident.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  28. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    What a sad two-step. First say Robertson’s bigotry was not offensive, to you. Then step away and say that you don’t actually support it.

    What have you got at the end of that? You think all bigots deserve TV shows?

    (Can you ask yourself how you’d feel as a Japanese-American, coming from a Shinto tradition, to the land of the free? Or if you were black and grew up seeing “whites only” restaurants?)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  29. john personna says:

    Perhaps this is the anti-intellectualism in action.

    City slickers and liberals want us to remember our real history.

    The dumb right wants stupid ideas to be as valid as smart ones.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  30. john personna says:

    Let’s not forget the Robertson two-step:

    1. Bigotry on race, religion, and sex
    2. Christian values!

    They might have made that work if it was just indelicate remarks about the gays, but it was not just about the gays.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  31. anjin-san says:

    @ john personna

    Hatin’ in Jesus name, amen!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  32. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    nothing on the topic at hand

    Look, the topic is duck dynasty, not dork dynasty. You should probably leave.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  33. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: I’m sorry you feel personally insulted, but what did you expect when your contribution to this “typically and depressingly stupid and inane” thread is this ” typically and depressingly stupid and inane” comment:

    I’m sorry you haven’t gotten over your crush on Sarah Palin. Dude, she’s married. No matter how many times you rhetorically put her pigtails in the inkwell, she ain’t gonna give you the time of day.

    Awfully Palin of you to say something so abjectly stupid, then complain about how personally insulted you are when someone calls you on it.

    As for this:

    Robertson paraphrased — accurately — the Bible’s teachings about homosexual behavior.

    That is not correct. He didn’t paraphrase the Bible’s teachings, as the Bible is mostly mute on the subject. What he paraphrased were Evangelical teachings, which is not the same thing.

    In other words, he was interpreting the text for us….not summarizing it. Anyone can do that. Indeed, after reading the Ten Commandments and the Gospels, I noticed that homosexual behavior isn’t mentioned at all. My interpretation is that when it comes to gay people, Jesus shrugs.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1

  34. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @James Pearce: I’m sorry you feel personally insulted, but what did you expect when your contribution to this “typically and depressingly stupid and inane” thread is this ” typically and depressingly stupid and inane” comment:

    Don’t feel sorry, I’m not insulted, I’m amused.

    Awfully Palin of you to say something so abjectly stupid, then complain about how personally insulted you are when someone calls you on it.

    That was directed at Doug, and Doug only.

    That is not correct. He didn’t paraphrase the Bible’s teachings, as the Bible is mostly mute on the subject. What he paraphrased were Evangelical teachings, which is not the same thing.

    n other words, he was interpreting the text for us….not summarizing it. Anyone can do that. Indeed, after reading the Ten Commandments and the Gospels, I noticed that homosexual behavior isn’t mentioned at all. My interpretation is that when it comes to gay people, Jesus shrugs.

    The Bible is more than just those two parts. There are a lot of other Books in the Bible, and those are pretty clear about gay conduct. And just because you don’t like them doesn’t make them go away.

    As I said, I disagree with those teachings, but you can’t just wish them away. They’re there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12

  35. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: What a sad two-step. First say Robertson’s bigotry was not offensive, to you. Then step away and say that you don’t actually support it.

    What have you got at the end of that? You think all bigots deserve TV shows?

    To lift from Reason’s Brian Doherty, who rebutted you eight days ago:

    There may have been a good reason why classical tolerance of expression was summed up in the epigram: “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!”

    That has a different feel than: “I disagree with what you say, I think you are evil for having said it, I think no one should associate with you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn’t agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well, but hey, I don’t think you should be arrested for it.”

    So much for that great liberal value of tolerance and respect. As usual, Ace of Spades nailed it. And by “it,” I mean “so many of you here.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

  36. superdestroyer says:

    Who cares? Palin is irrelevant but too many wonks and pundits just cannot seem to quit her. Once again, the MSM and progressives seem to spend way too much time and effort searching for something that a “conservative” said so that they can get upset about it.

    It continues to look like the future will be a time when the establishment, MSM, and all “right thinking” people will go on a two minute hate every week.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  37. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    The Bible is more than just those two parts.

    No doubt, and every bit of it has been interpreted in a variety of ways by a variety of different faiths, not just by the different Christian sects –Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Anglican, Amish– but by different religions entirely. The Bible tells the Jew not to eat pork. It tells the Mennonite to adopt modest dress. It tells the Catholic to take communion. It tells the Pentecostal to speak in tongues.

    So while I’ll allow that Evangelicals interpret the Bible to have strict and clear prohibitions on homosexual behavior, I will not concede that is what the Bible actually says.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

  38. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    That’s kind of my point. You aren’t actually defending something you admire, are you?

    So, why are you defending bigotry?

    Because everyone has a RIGHT to bigotry?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  39. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @James Pearce: So while I’ll allow that Evangelicals interpret the Bible to have strict and clear prohibitions on homosexual behavior, I will not concede that is what the Bible actually says.

    It’s a sad day when a card-carrying atheist has to quote parts of the Bible I reject to make a point, but go to whatever translation you prefer and look up Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 25:32. It’s pretty clear that the God cited there doesn’t approve of homosexual acts.

    I disagree with Robertson’s belief, but he’s on pretty solid ground in holding it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  40. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!”

    I used to have really strong feelings on this one. As a younger man, I even had this phrase printed on a custom T-shirt.

    Over the years, though, I have learned that, almost 100% of the time, it is being deployed in error. As a defense for, say, Pussy Riot, it’s right on. I think that song sucked and bursting in on that cathedral was disrespectful, but I DO NOT think members of Pussy Riot should have been jailed for it.

    But in Phil Robertson’s case, a guy who was and is free to say any damn fool thing he wants, when you pull out that quote, it gives one the impression that you’re not really defending his “right to free speech” as you are defending him from the disagreement.

    I propose a revision to this particular bumper sticker. “I will defend your right to free speech, but I will not defend all the dumb things you say.”

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1

  41. john personna says:

    Related, John Aziz on Twitter:

    Personally, I trust climatologists when it comes to climatology. I don’t trust Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Lord Monckton.

    Related because it ties to this “conservative” idea that a stupid idea is as good as a smart one.

    Jenos says he wants to defend stupid idea, OVER smart ones.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  42. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: Are these the same climatologists who, about a decade ago, were warning us about global warming and the potential extinction of the polar bear because of the vanishing ice caps? The same ice caps that are now bigger than ever?

    When they make predictions that end up 180 degrees wrong and have to keep revising their theories to fit the facts without ever changing their core arguments, a bit of scientific skepticism is pretty much mandatory.

    And their core argument is “humanity is destroying the globe and we need to radically change our way of life.” First it was through global cooling. When those predictions didn’t pan out, it became global warming. And when those predictions failed, it became climate change.

    “Climate Change” is the perfect answer: no matter what happens, it’s “proof of Climate Change.” Colder than expected? Climate change. Warmer? Climate change. More hurricanes? Fewer hurricanes? More tornadoes? Fewer tornadoes? Climate change.

    But back to the topic at hand: the message of today’s liberals, as represented so ably here, is that “disagreement will not be tolerated.” Not even dissent; merely having “wrong” thoughts and stating them is not acceptable.

    Just own your totalitarianism. Be honest, just this once.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12

  43. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    lol.

    “Let’s defend stupidity because it’s all we’ve got.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  44. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: Jenos says he wants to defend stupid idea, OVER smart ones.

    Here’s a hint, johnny: when you have to just plain make up shit to continue your argument, you’ve pretty much lost.

    I’m not defending Robertson’s ideas, I’m defending his RIGHT to have them. I’m probably closer to your beliefs on those areas than him.

    I just don’t feel some overwhelming compunction to see him hurt for holding them. I’m not so insecure in my beliefs that I need to see others silenced.

    Like I said: stop denying and just embrace your inner totalitarian. Because it really isn’t that “inner,” anyway.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  45. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    What kind of idiot defends the right to say stupid things?

    Wouldn’t you really rather be defending smart things?

    Wouldn’t you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  46. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: What kind of idiot defends the right to say stupid things?

    Someone who believes that rights are for everyone, not just the soi-disant elites.

    What kind of fascist only believes that “free speech” only covers approved speech?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  47. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    t’s a sad day when a card-carrying atheist has to quote parts of the Bible I reject to make a point, but go to whatever translation you prefer and look up Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 25:32. It’s pretty clear that the God cited there doesn’t approve of homosexual acts.

    Christians pick and choose which Levitican laws they follow. Christians see no problem with this because they believe Jesus provided them with a New Covenant that supersedes that of the Old Testament.

    I also think you should read Romans 1 in its entirety. I was, after all, very careful when I mentioned “strict and clear prohibitions on homosexual behavior.” Yes, Romans 25:32 mentions homosexuality, but it does not prohibit it. Indeed, reading the whole chapter -not just the verse- it becomes clear that the homosexual behavior Paul is talking about was God’s punishment for worshiping false idols.

    In other words, Christians who cite Leviticus are being disingenuous, and the ones who cite Romans misread the damn thing.

    I’m an atheist too. But I’m not going to let some supposedly devout Christian cite a book they don’t follow (Leviticus) or a book they didn’t even read (Romans) in order to justify their bigotry.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1

  48. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: Just for the record, why don’t you simplify your credo: “Free speech means everyone has the right to agree with me.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  49. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    No, you idiot, free speech means I can call you and Robertson out for your stupidity.

    I mean, WTF, you are running a thread past 50 comments to defend something do you not believe in?

    Rocket scientist, aren’t you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  50. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @James Pearce: So, you reject their right to judge you by… judging them?

    No wonder you dislike Phil Robertson so much. From the GQ interview, which you’ve not actually read, either:

    “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

  51. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: No, you idiot, free speech means I can call you and Robertson out for your stupidity.

    You’ve already established that free speech is only for you and those who agree with you, and not those who disagree with you. Do you really need to keep saying it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

  52. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    But back to the topic at hand: the message of today’s liberals, as represented so ably here, is that “disagreement will not be tolerated.” Not even dissent; merely having “wrong” thoughts and stating them is not acceptable.

    After reading this nonsense, I’m sorry I responded to you as if you’re a reasonable person.

    It’s the liberals who are saying “disagreement will not be tolerated?” Hell, man….we can’t even disagree with Phil Robertson without being accused of being intolerant fascists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  53. C. Clavin says:

    So bigots like Jenos use the bible to defend their behavior?
    This is nothing new. The bible can be, and has been, used to defend slavery.
    So I can only assume Jenos supports slavery…as a good bigot would.
    I’m sure Jesus would be proud of this very Christian behavior.
    Mr. Duck and Jenos and Palin are free to say whatever they want.
    And I’m free to recognize them as ignorant fools they show themselves to be.
    What else is there to discuss ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  54. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @James Pearce: Hell, man….we can’t even disagree with Phil Robertson without being accused of being intolerant fascists.

    No, you can’t act like an intolerant fascist without fear of being called an intolerant fascist.

    I disagree with Phil Robertson. I just don’t feel any great compunction to see him punished for simply saying his beliefs, especially when he explicitly rejects that his beliefs be enforced in any way upon anyone.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  55. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Imbecile. Free speech should be used to defend great men and great thinkers.

    I’ll put up the version of Bill Gates now doing global charity (Gates 3.0?). He’s someone I’d defend against detractors.

    Who have you got? Roberson is your great man and great philosopher?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  56. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    So, you reject their right to judge you by… judging them?

    You lost this one, so now you’re just going to be immature and obtuse? Is that it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  57. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @C. Clavin: Cliffy, have you ever actually understood a conversation before you jump in and demonstrate how far you can shove your feet down your throat? Even once?

    I’m defending that the Bible says what it says. I already said I’m an atheist, and reject a lot of it. But it takes a special kind of idiot or hypocrite to deny what it actually says.

    But you’ve always been special, haven’t you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

  58. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Right, because in the whacko bird world of the far right it is a given that stupid ideas must stand.

    Where would you be without them?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  59. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I just don’t feel any great compunction to see him punished for simply saying his beliefs, especially when he explicitly rejects that his beliefs be enforced in any way upon anyone.

    What a politically correct load of crap.

    It’s my right to criticize anyone for any reason. Nice to know that your commitment to “defend to the death” that right is conditional.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  60. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Oh… You want to play that game…
    Ok…the bible is a work of fiction about a fictional man…full of superstition and myth and allegory and metaphor.
    There are many interpretations of it in general, including the specific passages you cite.
    So to claim you know what the bible actually says…is sheer lunacy on a number of levels. But you are looney on a number of levels.
    So now how are you going to change your story again???

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  61. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: Free speech should be used to defend great men and great thinkers.

    I really can’t think of a single thing I could say that would condemn you more than your own words here. There is literally nothing more damning anyone could add to your confession.

    Not only do I defend your right to spout your fascist creed, I’ll even help you spread it by repeating it again:

    Free speech should be used to defend great men and great thinkers.

    So you oppose the ACLU supporting the Nazis marching in Skokie. You oppose Alan Dershowitz defending porn star Harry Reems. You support Jerry Falwell in his failed lawsuit against Larry Flynt. Because people like Nazis, porn stars, and pornographers don’t enjoy the rights you and your fellow soi-disant elites possess.

    Why do you keep beating around the bush, and just embrace your fascism?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  62. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @James Pearce: It’s my right to criticize anyone for any reason. Nice to know that your commitment to “defend to the death” that right is conditional.

    I spelled it out above, but apparently you missed it. You can say whatever you want, and I’m not interested in silencing you. As I’m showing with johnny, I am actually promoting his speech that I disagree with. It’s the call to enforce speech that I object to.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  63. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I’m defending that the Bible says what it says.

    No, you’re not. You’re defending the validity of that particular interpretation.

    If you were defending what the Bible actually says, you’d admit that it doesn’t say much on the subject.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  64. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Is Mr. Duck being charged with a crime?
    What did I miss?
    Or are you just off your meds again?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  65. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    I see the anti-free-speech fascists are finding courage in numbers again, and I have better things to do than engage in yet another 3-on-1 insult fest. From here on out, I’m going to exercise my right to free speech (which johnny doesn’t think I ought to have) and pick and choose how and when I respond.

    And any comments that actually contain new and valid points will be far more likely to get my attention than the same old bullshit and stupid insults. Which means I should have a pretty free morning.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

  66. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @C. Clavin: OK, I’ll respond to one last utterly stupid comment — because if I didn’t, then Cliffy would never get my attention again.

    Is Mr. Duck being charged with a crime?
    What did I miss?

    As I quoted hours ago:

    There may have been a good reason why classical tolerance of expression was summed up in the epigram: “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!”

    That has a different feel than: “I disagree with what you say, I think you are evil for having said it, I think no one should associate with you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn’t agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well, but hey, I don’t think you should be arrested for it.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  67. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Oh poor baby…you showed everyone how stupid you are, again…so go away pouting…and blame everyone else for your shortcomings.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  68. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    You really are dumb.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  69. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Straw man argument.
    I thought you were leaving pouty-boy???

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  70. KM says:

    @Jenos:

    Just for the record, why don’t you simplify your credo: “Free speech means everyone has the right to agree with me.”

    So, you reject their right to judge you by… judging them?

    But back to the topic at hand: the message of today’s liberals, as represented so ably here, is that “disagreement will not be tolerated.” Not even dissent; merely having “wrong” thoughts and stating them is not acceptable.

    Not to hammer on the cognitive dissonance but is that what you’re doing? “Phil is right to have his opinion because of his faith so anybody who complains about the content of that message is an intolerant asshole. Like Palin, I don’t care exactly what he said but I will defend it because I don’t like that people complaining. I will then accuse them of violating his 1st Amendment rights while doing the same thing to them.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  71. KM says:

    “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!”

    This ranks right up there with “The Customer is Always Right!” as a great ideal with lousy practical use. Ummm no, no they are not. There are times when the Customer is a raging moron who is axiomatically wrong and their business is just not worth it. Sometimes, what someone says isn’t worth the hill you’ll die on defending it. That’s OK, people. We can still be the Land of the Free if we don’t support everyone moron with an opinion that comes along – we might actually be better off for it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  72. Tony W says:

    Not the first thing Sarah didn’t read, nor I suspect the last.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  73. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    You are really really dumb .
    I can only reason from your nonsensical posts that you think freedom of speech ends when Mr. Duck has spoken. Anyone else exercising their freedom after that amounts to Fascism.
    Which is like your idea that once Armitage outed Plame Libby couldn’t out her.
    Both of which are really really dumb.
    Pouty- boy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  74. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Shorter Jenos… You are all Fascists… But you insulted me so I’m going to go pout.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  75. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    I’m not defending Robertson’s ideas, I’m defending his RIGHT to have them.

    You are fighting a battle in a war that does not exist.

    Where has anyone said he does not have the right to hold his ideas, or for that matter, to freely express them?

    The only thing the non hate-based community is saying is that he risks ostracism in our segment of society as a result of trumpeting views that millions of Americans find repulsive.

    The man has a right to hold his opinions, and to express them, that is not in question. On the other hand, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

    The fact that you seem to be too dim to grasp this rather simple idea is not amusing, it’s just sad.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  76. john personna says:

    @anjin-san:

    You are fighting a battle in a war that does not exist.

    Absolutely true. If this was really a free speech issue, it would be about whether Esquire should have published Robertson, or whether Esquire should have censored him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  77. anjin-san says:

    “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!”

    You are going to defend someone’s rights to the death?

    Buddy, I think we all know that talking big on a blog is the extent of your courage.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  78. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    It’s the call to enforce speech that I object to.

    Sure. I just wish you would realize that “Don’t criticize Phil Robertson” is, indeed, a “call to enforce speech.”

    And you don’t object to that as strongly as you think you do.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1

  79. mattbernius says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Are these the same climatologists who, about a decade ago, were warning us about global warming and the potential extinction of the polar bear because of the vanishing ice caps? The same ice caps that are now bigger than ever?

    I’ll continue to believe the climatologists while deniers like you keep writing false statements like these.

    Fact: The same ice caps that are *NOT* now “bigger than ever.” This is a demonstrative falsehood.

    Since you say polar bears, which only live in the arctic, I’ll assume for the moment you are talking about Arctic ice.

    Fact: The amount of Arctic sea ice (commonly referred to as the “ice cap”) was at 16855 km cubed in 1979. In 2012 it was at 3612 km cubed.

    Fact: Yes, Arctic sea ice did increase over the previous year in 2013, but only 29%. It’s still far below the historic high recorded in 1979. For a fully sourced account of this see:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html

    Fact: Existing climate models allow for year to year increases, while still predicting a downward trend. The long term trend, continues towards loss of ice.BTW, those climatologists you attacks, about 80% last year predicted that there would be an upward bump in ice production this year.

    Now it’s also true that *Antarctic* sea ice has been growing, and has been measured at the highest amount since they have been tracking it. However, (1) this has again, generally been expected by climatologists, (2) is an entirely different eco/ice-system than arctic, and (3) has never been considered a solid predictor of the effects of climate change.

    If you actually cared about having an informed (versus dogmatic) opinion on the topic (funny to see an atheist so religious about a science based issue), this information is very easy to find.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  80. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Yawn… back to sorting laundry. It’s far more entertaining than the same old idiots here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

  81. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: Absolutely true. If this was really a free speech issue, it would be about whether Esquire should have published Robertson, or whether Esquire should have censored him.

    For the third time:

    There may have been a good reason why classical tolerance of expression was summed up in the epigram: “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!”

    That has a different feel than: “I disagree with what you say, I think you are evil for having said it, I think no one should associate with you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn’t agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well, but hey, I don’t think you should be arrested for it.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  82. mattbernius says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    When they make predictions that end up 180 degrees wrong and have to keep revising their theories to fit the facts without ever changing their core arguments, a bit of scientific skepticism is pretty much mandatory.

    Just to be clear: What you just did was not *skepticism* it was faith based denial.

    Skepticism is seeking out facts to judge positions. The facts you gave for your skepticism were demonstratively false. And easily proven as false.

    You are not a skeptic on this topic. You are a denier. And the basis for that denial is clearly about your own personal biases and beliefs, not the actual facts at hand.

    Which means, ultimately, it’s religious in nature — in that it’s about faith and not facts. That is the antithesis of skepticism.

    So please, stop justifying your dogma as skepticism until you can actually demonstrate that you are an honest skeptic.

    —————-
    Aside – as I’ve written many time here before, it’s entirely possible to be an honest skeptic on a number of climate issues.

    But on the topic of whether or not that heating based climate change is happening, it’s not possible to be an honest skeptic any longer. Nor can one be a skeptic on the question of whether or not human activity is contributing to it.

    Now the degree to which both are happening, that’s definitely an area where skepticism is possible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  83. anjin-san says:

    It’s far more entertaining than the same old idiots here.

    Ah, that explains why you did not move on to other blogs years ago.

    Get some new material dude, recycling stuff from the 8th grade impresses nobody but yourself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  84. KM says:

    @Jenos:

    Yawn… back to sorting laundry. It’s far more entertaining than the same old idiots here.

    Aww pookie you know you love us! Was there no WiFi at the laundromat to continue this “debate”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  85. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    I will repeat myself too. Just show us all the comments you wrote defending the Dixie Chicks, and we can all move on.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  86. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Yawn… back to sorting laundry.

    What’s your Mom gonna do then?

    (Sorry, man. Couldn’t resist. I saw that and a hundred jokes flashed before my eyes. You gotta admit it though, man, you like engaging with us. You enjoy the back and forth as much as we do.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  87. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Who the f*k is trying to arrest Robertson, you loon?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  88. john personna says:

    @mattbernius:

    But on the topic of whether or not that heating based climate change is happening, it’s not possible to be an honest skeptic any longer. Nor can one be a skeptic on the question of whether or not human activity is contributing to it.

    When the Skeptics Socity flipped, and became climate change believers, it was pretty much over (for all but whacko birds):

    How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused

    (ugly page, scroll down for the actual article) It ends:

    The conclusion is clear: there’s science, and then there’s the anti-science of the global warming denial. As we have seen, there is a nearly unanimous consensus among climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real and that we must do something about it. Yet the smokescreen, bluster and lies of the deniers has created enough doubt that only half of the American public is convinced the problem requires action. Ironically, the U.S. is almost alone in their denial of this scientific reality. International polls taken of 33,000 people in nations in 2006 and 2007 show that 90% of their citizens regard climate change as a serious problem and 80% realize that humans are the cause of it. Just as in the case of creationism, the U.S. is out of step with much of the rest of the world in accepting scientific reality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  89. slimslowslider says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  90. wr says:

    @john personna: “I mean, WTF, you are running a thread past 50 comments to defend something do you not believe in?”

    The question answers itself. For 50 comments, someone is paying attention to him. So for 50 comments, he knows he exists. That the only impact he can have on the world is to annoy strangers seems to be a fact of his life he’s comfortable with.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  91. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Jenos now claims to be an atheist.
    Remember Jan? She claimed to be a liberal.
    And Fox News. They claimed to be fair and balanced.
    Good times.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  92. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: Who the f*k is trying to arrest Robertson, you loon?

    There may have been a good reason why classical tolerance of expression was summed up in the epigram: “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!”

    That has a different feel than: “I disagree with what you say, I think you are evil for having said it, I think no one should associate with you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn’t agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well, but hey, I don’t think you should be arrested for it.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  93. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: I mean, WTF, you are running a thread past 50 comments to defend something do you not believe in?

    How unsurprising that you’re not familiar with the concept of “principles.” Since you’ve declared that free speech is only for those who you support, it’s no wonder that you can’t grasp the concept of supporting someone’s right to say something while disagreeing with what they say.

    Oh, hell, let’s just Godwin this stupid thread and put it out of its misery.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  94. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    You don’t have the least clue that you are arguing
    that no one but Mr Duck has the right to their opinion.
    I could have stopped after ” clue”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  95. An Interested Party says:

    I actually did read the article, and didn’t see a damned thing objectionable in anything he said.

    No, of course you don’t

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  96. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: And now Jenos, the laziest troll on the internet, turns into Superdestroyer, cutting and pasting the same boring sentences over and over and over again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  97. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I can do better than that.

    First they defended idiocy …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  98. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @An Interested Party: Saw that, too. Here, for the idiots from the Cult of the Perpetually Offended who didn’t actually read the article:

    I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field …. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word! … Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

    He says that was his experience — that’s what “with my eyes” means. He isn’t saying it didn’t happen, he’s saying what he saw and didn’t see, as a child. He’s recalling events from 60-odd years ago.

    You got any evidence he’s lying? That he’s making any overarching statements? He’s saying what he remembers experiencing. Period.

    It wasn’t my experience, it apparently wasn’t yours. And it was hardly typical. But I don’t see him saying it was.

    It’s the Cult of Perpetually Offended. Some people just gotta find SOMETHING to be offended by, and anyone who isn’t OUTRAGED is a bad person, too.

    Get over yourselves, will ya?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

  99. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    What pathetic sophistry. You are actually defending a blinkered view, of what he saw, with his own eyes.

    In doing so you deny what you know was true.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  100. john personna says:

    First they defended idiocy …

    And before long, they were all idiots.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  101. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @john personna: I realize that you would rather listen to fabricated stories over real stories, because they’re “truthier,” but it’s entirely plausible that Robertson didn’t see the things he didn’t see.

    He’s not saying that it didn’t happen, and I’m not saying it didn’t happen, so stop pushing that lie. He’s saying he didn’t personally see it, and I see no reason to doubt him. You don’t even bother to doubt him, you call him a liar simply because he says his personal experiences don’t conform to your stereotypes. Because you can’t stand those who don’t agree with you one hundred percent, and believe only the “right” people have certain rights.

    Which pretty much describes the despicable people you think I’m defending… or at least denying. They, too, thought only the “right” people were entitled to certain rights.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

  102. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    He is implying it (bad things for blacks before civil rights) didn’t happen.

    That was his entire purpose.

    And WTF is your purpose? Are you claiming that if a black is hung in a forest, and no one is there, he makes no sound?

    And Robertson, at an age where he certainly know better, can say “I know nothing?”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  103. michael reynolds says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    If we ever have a national shortage of stupid we can use your comments in this thread as a sort of strategic reserve.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  104. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Well…I think I have to defer to Jenos on this one.
    I mean…it takes one to know one , right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  105. al-Ameda says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Who cares? Palin is irrelevant but too many wonks and pundits just cannot seem to quit her.

    You have it backwards – the problem is that Palin can’t seem to quit us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  106. superdestroyer says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Since Palin has zero influence on policy, she has, by definition, quit the public forum. However, it seems that too many progressives prefer to concentrate on the irrelevant rather than then what is relevant in public policy.

    It seems that progressives believe that if they get themselves worked up over totally irrelevant conservative has-beens, then those same progressives can ignore policy, governance, or the future.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  107. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:
    That may be one of the dumbest comments in a thread full of Jenos making virtuoso-level stupid comments.
    Deny reality, much?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  108. rudderpedals says:

    @superdestroyer: Since Palin has zero influence on policy, she has, by definition, quit the public forum.

    That’ll be news to Greta Van Susteren.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  109. wr says:

    @rudderpedals: “That’ll be news to Greta Van Susteren.”

    But then, what wouldn’t be?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  110. rudderpedals says:

    @wr: Good point. Van Susteren needs to fill the time much like a packager needs to blow styrofoam peanuts into a mostly empty box.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  111. superdestroyer says:

    @C. Clavin:

    The next time Sarah Palin actually influences policy or governance in the U.S., the progressives would be correct in being concerned about her opinion. HOwever since former governor Palin has never been able to influence policy or governance on the national level, what she has to say is totally irrelevant.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  112. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:
    Sarah Palin… Of Death Panel fame…doesn’t influence Republican policy positions?
    Are you unaware of the current civil war in the GOP between moderates and the Tea Baggers?
    Do you think those fools don’t lick up every word she says?
    Jenos spent his entire day defending her.
    If you think she isn’t influencing Republic policy…you’re daft.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  113. Tillman says:

    So?

    I didn’t even know she had responded to the article in any way.

    Why do you people still care about this woman? You just keep giving her validity and create 100+ comment threads debating things that come out of her ignorant, money-making mouth.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  114. Grewgills says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    It’s a sad day when a card-carrying atheist has to quote parts of the Bible I reject to make a point, but go to whatever translation you prefer and look up Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 25:32. It’s pretty clear that the God cited there doesn’t approve of homosexual acts.

    When someone digs into Leviticus or Deuteronomy to justify their intolerance of homosexuality, yet fails to stone their child to death at the edge of town for talking back, or fails to force a raped woman to marry her rapist, etc, then I can’t help but conclude that they aren’t so much trying to stay true to their faith as use their faith to justify their bigotry.
    The New Testament brought a new covenant. The only reason for a Christian to cite the Old Covenant on homosexuality is to support their own bigotry.
    There are exactly two mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament both in letters from Paul. As has already been pointed out, the one you found doesn’t say what you think it does.
    The verses and interpretations Robertson used were cherry picked to support bigotry.
    If he really did cleave to Deuteronomy as his quote would suggest he would be living his life MUCH differently.

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    He says that was his experience — that’s what “with my eyes” means. He isn’t saying it didn’t happen, he’s saying what he saw and didn’t see, as a child. He’s recalling events from 60-odd years ago.

    You got any evidence he’s lying? That he’s making any overarching statements? He’s saying what he remembers experiencing. Period.

    He is no longer a child; he is a grown man with grandchildren and so should now understand that as a child his parents sheltered him from the uglier parts of life. Unless he is a congenital moron he has since seen evidence that the Jim Crow South that he is referencing is nothing like the sheltered view he had of it as a child. He continues his ahistorical idiocy by claiming that it was Welfare that brought on the difficulties for African Americans and that the time of his childhood was a better time for African Americans.
    He further demonstrates a dearth of knowledge about the blues almost as striking as his ignorance of race relations where he grew up, as he apparently thinks they began in the 60s.

    He has every right to have idiotic opinions and every right to express them. I and others have every right to our opinions that he is an idiot and we have every right to express them. The board of A&E have every right to their opinions and have every right to express them. You seemingly only care about the rights of one of those groups.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  115. Grewgills says:

    @Tillman:
    It is a weakness.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  116. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I’m not defending Robertson’s ideas, I’m defending his RIGHT to have them.

    There is no need to defend that right, moron, as it was never threatened.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  117. An Interested Party says:

    It’s the Cult of Perpetually Offended. Some people just gotta find SOMETHING to be offended by, and anyone who isn’t OUTRAGED is a bad person, too.

    Get over yourselves, will ya?

    Oh that’s incredibly rich coming from someone who sees a conspiracy behind every move that the Obama Administrations makes…while your sorting the laundry, commenter, heal thyself…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  118. Matt says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: I’m not a big fan of a lot of the bible as it’s clear that sections of it are written with an agenda much like any holy book written today. Written translated and “revised” over the last many hundred years to suit the agenda of those in power. There’s a whole host of things in the bible that most modern Christians ignore. Even the CHristians advocating the death penalty for gays are ignoring sections of the bible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  119. mantis says:

    When I was a child, a lot of awful shit happened I wasn’t aware of. I don’t use my childish memories today to deny that it did happen. That’s a thing racists do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  120. anjin-san says:

    He says that was his experience

    What crap. When I was coming up in the 60′s and 70′s in MARIN COUNTY for God’s sake, if I was hanging out with my black friends, we had to be ready to fight every fricking time we went out the door. Because half the time there was a group of white kids saying “get the f**k off my street ni**er” or “we don’t want coons on the playground”, or whatever.

    Wallace for President buttons were very big when I was in seventh grade, and racial tension, while not boiling over, was constant.

    So no, I don’t believe for one second that in Louisiana in the 50s there was even a tiny corner of reality where blacks did not get shit on regularly. I don’t believe that black folks were a happy and a singing without a care in the world, and that all was well before liberals filled there heads with all sort of complicated ideas.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  121. Grewgills says:

    @anjin-san:
    I didn’t have it that bad 10 years later in Alabama. There were still some restaurants I couldn’t go with black friends, so I didn’t go at all and we were pulled over for no reason other than driving through the wrong neighborhood at night, but we didn’t have to prepare for violence when we would go out. There was evident systemic racism that I saw growing up there, but by then it didn’t generally involve random violence.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  122. superdestroyer says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Since the Republicans have zero influence of nationalizing the health insurance industry, the delivery of health care, and health mandates, then whatever any Republican says about health care, death panels, or insurance is irrelevant.

    The establishment Republicans can feud all they want with fiscal or social conservatives but in the end, both groups are irrelevant since they have zero influence on policy or governance in the U.S.

    When the Obama Administration started giving itself waivers from laws passed by Congress and no one on the left cared, it should be obvious that Sarah Palin and the rest of the conservative celebrities have zero influence on policy, governance, or future laws in the U.S. The Obama Administration can do just about whatever it wants and there is nothing that conservatives can do to stop it or even change the actions.

    Of course, if progressives did not have irrelevant Republicans to rant about and go on two-minute hate every week, then those same progressives would have to focus on realty and what can and cannot be done. However, realty seems to be the last thing that progressives want to think about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  123. TS says:

    @Paul L.:

    Hardly. I too prefer heterosexual sex. Cuz I ain’t gay. But if someone is gay they can do and marry whoever they want. Its thinking they shouldn’t, and that you should be able to enforce that on them, that is bigotry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  124. TS says:

    @Grewgills:

    Actually the bible isn’t clear on whether the “old testament still counts”. to definitively say it doesn’t is misguided, there are plenty of passages in the new testament that tend to swing both ways in that regard, therefore its murky and pretty much up to personal opinion. Furthermore if you are a believer, at one time they did count, and that God was still a self righteous, arrogant, bigoted, murderous, genocidal, sadistic prick.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  125. anjin-san says:

    @ Grewgills

    Well, the level of violence we encountered was fights between kids, no more, so a bloody nose or split lip was about as much damage as was done, at least physically.

    But the black kids always knew they were different, and they always knew a lot of people disliked them and wished they were not around. That does its own kind of damage, especially to innocents.

    Things did improve quite a bit by the mid 70s, as the anger & tensions of the civil rights era lessened and integrated neighborhoods became the norm.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  126. Grewgills says:

    @TS:
    The point stands that cherry picking certain passages while ignoring others is all about rationalizing prejudices rather than faith and religiosity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0