...O/T...I am so sick of this type thing;

[Denny Crane]

...that does not in any way address your contradiction;

1. you first sad; "If you think "bigot" has some negative connotation, feel free to explain why."

2. you then said "He's a racist and a bigot. Not something I'd be proud of or defend"



...which is it?...keep tap dancing.

You don't like the answer. Sorry.

I can only repeat it a few times before it's obvious you're ignoring the truth.

One more time.

he's a racist. I won't defend him for that, it's indefensible.

he's a bigot. You defend him for it. Fine. But he is.

 

[yankeesince59]

...^^^"I don't like the answer"?

...you have not answered the question, period. The 2 statements you made are blatant contradictions.

...just admit you mis-spoke and don't know what you're babbling about and are now in "damage control" mode.

 

[Denny Crane]

...^^^"I don't like the answer"?

...you have not answered the question, period. The 2 statements you made are blatant contradictions.

...just admit you mis-spoke and don't know what you're babbling about and are now in "damage control" mode.

I've answered the question several times.

That you keep saying I didn't means you're not reading it or getting it.

No two statements I made are in contradiction.

The man is a bigot and a racist.

He is a bigot, that is a fact.

That he combines that with action like denouncing 30M to 40M people in this country who are gay makes him an outright a-hole. That he has these terrible views of how black people were treated before the civil rights movement is outright dangerous.

 

[yankeesince59]

Are you intentionally obtuse or are you simply being coy?...because I can't believe you could be this dense.

...1...you said "If you think "bigot" has some negative connotation, feel free to explain why." ...translation; you DON'T think "bigot" is a bad thing

...2, you then said "He's a racist and a bigot. Not something I'd be proud of or defend"...translation; you DO think "bigot" is a bad thing.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think bigot is a bad thing.

Get it?

YOU seem to take offense to him being called what he is.

I do think him being a bigot and ACTING on his fear of gay people, or intolerance of gay people, or however you feel you need to justify his bigotry, is a disgrace.

He's also clearly a racist. There's no denying it, though you insist for some silly reason.

 

[yankeesince59]

...I was wrong about one thing, you really are dense because I don't take offense to anything. I'm simply pointing out your error.

...you've just admitted (again) that you DON'T think the word "bigot" is a bad thing. ("not a negative connotation")

...you also claim that he is a "bigot" (Not something you'd be proud of or defend")(your own words) ,which IS a bad thing (obvious negative connotation)



...when you make 2 contrary statements like that, how can you expect anyone here to take you seriously?

 

[Denny Crane]

I think you resort to name calling because the facts aren't on your side.

You take a sentence like "bigot AND racist" and turn it into "bigot" as if the meaning is the same and then argue against that. It's a logical fallacy called "straw man"

I can see your frustration that I won't argue your straw man.

I admit I'm a bigot in the sense that I have no tolerance for people who would deny other people their right to pursue happiness or their civil rights. So I don't think being a bigot is necessarily a bad thing. Again, it is if you act on it in a way that harms people.

 

[yankeesince59]

...no, I simply have a low tolerance for people who try to blow half baked theories up other people's asses..."straw man"?...you're fucking nuts.

...I QUOTED and used your OWN WORDS and changed NOTHING...and clearly and very simply illustrated your faux pas...feel free to go back and read and point to anything I distorted....you won't be able to....but you already knew that, didn't you?


...you "won't argue" because, well, you fucked up, and you know it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Quote me where I said being a bigot is a bad thing.

 

[yankeesince59]

Quote me where I said being a bigot is a bad thing.

...I already have, dumbass...about 4-5 times...but here are your words again;

"He's a racist and a bigot. Not something I'd be proud of or defend"


...are you seriously trying to say that not being proud of something... or not willing to defend something is in any way a "good thing"?

 

[Rick2583]

I don't think bigot is a bad thing.

Get it?

YOU seem to take offense to him being called what he is.

I do think him being a bigot and ACTING on his fear of gay people, or intolerance of gay people, or however you feel you need to justify his bigotry, is a disgrace.

He's also clearly a racist. There's no denying it, though you insist for some silly reason.

Denny I don't want this to turn onto that we're ganging up on you but, first off being a bigot IS a bad thing. There is no good that comes from that word. Webster defies bigot as "one who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed". Mr. Robertson has not done that. He saw them laughing in the fields so he assumed (right or wrong) that they were happy. Hell, when I see someone laughing I would assume the same thing. And you STILL haven't shown me ANYWHERE where he said he was happy about those other things, buses, fountain back of restaurants etc.

Look, let me ask you a question, I have NEVER used the term African american. And I never will. Now that by itself may have people think I'm a bigot (racist) but I'm not. By the time I was 14 years old I had already spent half my life in an orphanage (mixed races). As I grew up of course I went to school, joined the service & worked. And in a few months I'll be turning 60. Now you may wonder why I'm telling you this, well, in all those experiences I have played with, showered with, went to school with, shared a bedroom with, & worked with many black people. I've even developed many great friendships with blacks & even dated a few lovely woman of color. BUT.........I have NEVER known one that even so much as visited Africa let alone having been born there. Nor were any of there parents. So my point is that the term African american just doesn't apply. It is my opinion that the only group of people that should be called BLANK Americans are Asians since 80% of them in this country were born in there native lands.

So if I was being interviewed & I was asked how I feel about the term African American & I gave my above response would I be labeled a racist? Like Robertson I was asked for MY opinion & I gave it. The fact that people don't agree with my opinion is really NOT my problem.

BTW: I'll still wait for the part of Robertson's article where he said those other things. (fountains, buses, etc.).

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny I don't want this to turn onto that we're ganging up on you but, first off being a bigot IS a bad thing. There is no good that comes from that word. Webster defies bigot as "one who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed". Mr. Robertson has not done that. He saw them laughing in the fields so he assumed (right or wrong) that they were happy. Hell, when I see someone laughing I would assume the same thing. And you STILL haven't shown me ANYWHERE where he said he was happy about those other things, buses, fountain back of restaurants etc.

Look, let me ask you a question, I have NEVER used the term African american. And I never will. Now that by itself may have people think I'm a bigot (racist) but I'm not. By the time I was 14 years old I had already spent half my life in an orphanage (mixed races). As I grew up of course I went to school, joined the service & worked. And in a few months I'll be turning 60. Now you may wonder why I'm telling you this, well, in all those experiences I have played with, showered with, went to school with, shared a bedroom with, & worked with many black people. I've even developed many great friendships with blacks & even dated a few lovely woman of color. BUT.........I have NEVER known one that even so much as visited Africa let alone having been born there. Nor were any of there parents. So my point is that the term African american just doesn't apply. It is my opinion that the only group of people that should be called BLANK Americans are Asians since 80% of them in this country were born in there native lands.

So if I was being interviewed & I was asked how I feel about the term African American & I gave my above response would I be labeled a racist? Like Robertson I was asked for MY opinion & I gave it. The fact that people don't agree with my opinion is really NOT my problem.

BTW: I'll still wait for the part of Robertson's article where he said those other things. (fountains, buses, etc.).

So holding blindly and intolerantly to that Corinthians excerpt makes him a bigot.

Mr. Robertson grew up in the south during the 1960s. To think he was somehow sheltered from all the egregious things that were done to black people there all along is just silly. You think he never ate places where black people were not allowed?

This kind of thing was on the TV news fairly often:

And here are those happy singing black folk of the time:

I have a buddy who's Italian. Born here in the states, never been to Italy. I'm not seeing your point about people of African descent. The one big difference between African-Americans and Italian-Americans or any other ethnic group here is that only the African-Americans' ancestors were brought here in chains, against their will, made into slaves, and had a century of Jim Crow LAW and KKK type organizations "keeping them in their place."

 

[Hammerojustice]

Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

No, they were not happy. The guy is painting some rosy picture of the south that somehow it was OK the way it was. It wasn't.

If he had said, "I wish it were like it was in 1850 for black people in the South, they were happy then" you would be defending him because he didn't outright say slavery.

Indefensible.

the people he worked with were happy... the people he saw were happy... he didn't use the word ALL

 

[Hammerojustice]

You don't like the answer. Sorry.

I can only repeat it a few times before it's obvious you're ignoring the truth.

One more time.

he's a racist. I won't defend him for that, it's indefensible.

he's a bigot. You defend him for it. Fine. But he is.

only thing... he isn't a racist though... you have completely FAILED to show that he is a racist. and he isn't a bigot either. He didn't say that he hates homosexuals. He said what they were doing is wrong, but he didn't say he hated any of them, so he isn't even a bigot either...

 

[Denny Crane]

No one was singing the blues.

If you're going to parse the words and be exact in his defense, the "no one" mean "no one" or "not any."

 

[Denny Crane]

only thing... he isn't a racist though... you have completely FAILED to show that he is a racist. and he isn't a bigot either. He didn't say that he hates homosexuals. He said what they were doing is wrong, but he didn't say he hated any of them, so he isn't even a bigot either...

He equated homosexuality with bestiality. Corinthians does not mention bestiality.

Bigotry does not have to involve hate. If YOU get to define what "bigot" means, then for sure he isn't one. Contempt or fear both apply, so he is a bigot.

I have absolutely shown he's a racist. Your denial doesn't change the facts.

 

[Hammerojustice]

So holding blindly and intolerantly to that Corinthians excerpt makes him a bigot.

Mr. Robertson grew up in the south during the 1960s. To think he was somehow sheltered from all the egregious things that were done to black people there all along is just silly. You think he never ate places where black people were not allowed?

This kind of thing was on the TV news fairly often:

And here are those happy singing black folk of the time:

I have a buddy who's Italian. Born here in the states, never been to Italy. I'm not seeing your point about people of African descent. The one big difference between African-Americans and Italian-Americans or any other ethnic group here is that only the African-Americans' ancestors were brought here in chains, against their will, made into slaves, and had a century of Jim Crow LAW and KKK type organizations "keeping them in their place."

You obviously know nothing about his background. He and his family were dirt poor... hence why he was working in the cotton fields... so they probably didn't even have a TV or around the kind of "white folk" that were portraying that horrible prejudice. He worked with them, next to them. He sang with them, he ate with them, he fed them, he gave them money when his family had barely any of its own... why would a racist do ANY of those things let alone ALL of them... And holding onto the Corinthians passage does not in any way, shape, or form make him a bigot.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not to shift gears or anything, but you do see the contradiction that somehow Robertson's 1st amendment rights are violated (not sure how, but that seems to be the claim), yet GLAAD and NAACP should not be afforded THEIR 1st amendment rights.

 

[Hammerojustice]

He equated homosexuality with bestiality. Corinthians does not mention bestiality.

Bigotry does not have to involve hate. If YOU get to define what "bigot" means, then for sure he isn't one. Contempt or fear both apply, so he is a bigot.

I have absolutely shown he's a racist. Your denial doesn't change the facts.

Where does he show contempt? where does he show fear? he doesn't for either. He just plainly says it is wrong and that it doesn't make sense.

And no, he didn't "equate" bestiality with homosexuality in anything other than saying they (along with many other things including adultery and drunkenness) were sins...

 

[Hammerojustice]

Not to shift gears or anything, but you do see the contradiction that somehow Robertson's 1st amendment rights are violated (not sure how, but that seems to be the claim), yet GLAAD and NAACP should not be afforded THEIR 1st amendment rights.

who said glaad or naacp shouldn't be afforded their 1st amendment rights???? I didn't, I know that for sure! I haven't seen anyone else on this thread or board say that glaad or naacp shouldn't either... so where are you getting this crap from?

 

[Rick2583]

So holding blindly and intolerantly to that Corinthians excerpt makes him a bigot.

Mr. Robertson grew up in the south during the 1960s. To think he was somehow sheltered from all the egregious things that were done to black people there all along is just silly. You think he never ate places where black people were not allowed?

This kind of thing was on the TV news fairly often:

And here are those happy singing black folk of the time:

I have a buddy who's Italian. Born here in the states, never been to Italy. I'm not seeing your point about people of African descent. The one big difference between African-Americans and Italian-Americans or any other ethnic group here is that only the African-Americans' ancestors were brought here in chains, against their will, made into slaves, and had a century of Jim Crow LAW and KKK type organizations "keeping them in their place."

Holy crap Denny you're going back 100-150 years to make a point? Look its terrible the way blacks were treated back then & even during hateful days that you illustrate through the above photo's but I think by Robertson saying they were happy you're assuming that he meant though EVERYTHING. and he's clearly not. I mean c'mon he talks about seeing blacks in cornfields laughing & you're ASSUMING that he thinks blacks were happy about everything they've been through. You're blowing this WAY out of perportion.

You seem to be condeming the man because he answered a direct question HONESTLY. As I mentioned earlier this was NOT an unsolicited anti-gay rant. He was asked a question & he answered it. What the hell is this country coming to when you have to tip toe through every opinion & walk on egg shells when giving an HONEST answer to a question because a few over-sensitive ass wipes might be offended.

It's total bullshit. If you don't like the answers don't ask the fucking questions.

 

[Denny Crane]

You obviously know nothing about his background. He and his family were dirt poor... hence why he was working in the cotton fields... so they probably didn't even have a TV or around the kind of "white folk" that were portraying that horrible prejudice. He worked with them, next to them. He sang with them, he ate with them, he fed them, he gave them money when his family had barely any of its own... why would a racist do ANY of those things let alone ALL of them... And holding onto the Corinthians passage does not in any way, shape, or form make him a bigot.

"Some of my best friends are black" is a common defense employed by racists. LOL.

Rick cited the M-W dictionary definition of bigotry.

Webster defies bigot as "one who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed".

Does Robertson hold blindly to his interpretation of the Bible? Yes. He is a bigot by any definition. His particular creed is that gay people are deviates and sinners. What will change his mind about this? Nothing. He's a bigot.

 

[Hammerojustice]

Holy crap Denny you're going back 100-150 years to make a point? Look its terrible the way blacks were treated back then & even during hateful days that you illustrate through the above photo's but I think by Robertson saying they were happy you're assuming that he meant though EVERYTHING. and he's clearly not. I mean c'mon he talks about seeing blacks in cornfields laughing & you're ASSUMING that he thinks blacks were happy about everything they've been through. You're blowing this WAY out of perportion.

You seem to be condeming the man because he answered a direct question HONESTLY. As I mentioned earlier this was NOT an unsolicited anti-gay rant. He was asked a question & he answered it. What the hell is this country coming to when you have to tip toe through every opinion & walk on egg shells when giving an HONEST answer to a question because a few over-sensitive ass wipes might be offended.

It's total bullshit. If you don't like the answers don't ask the fucking questions.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hammerojustice]

"Some of my best friends are black" is a common defense employed by racists. LOL.

Rick cited the M-W dictionary definition of bigotry.

Webster defies bigot as "one who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed".

Does Robertson hold blindly to his interpretation of the Bible? Yes. He is a bigot by any definition. His particular creed is that gay people are deviates and sinners. What will change his mind about this? Nothing. He's a bigot.

That is ANYONE and EVERYONE then... so you are saying EVERYONE is a bigot then cause everyone holds blindly to at least one belief (if not more)

 

[Denny Crane]

Holy crap Denny you're going back 100-150 years to make a point? Look its terrible the way blacks were treated back then & even during hateful days that you illustrate through the above photo's but I think by Robertson saying they were happy you're assuming that he meant though EVERYTHING. and he's clearly not. I mean c'mon he talks about seeing blacks in cornfields laughing & you're ASSUMING that he thinks blacks were happy about everything they've been through. You're blowing this WAY out of perportion.

You seem to be condeming the man because he answered a direct question HONESTLY. As I mentioned earlier this was NOT an unsolicited anti-gay rant. He was asked a question & he answered it. What the hell is this country coming to when you have to tip toe through every opinion & walk on egg shells when giving an HONEST answer to a question because a few over-sensitive ass wipes might be offended.

It's total bullshit. If you don't like the answers don't ask the fucking questions.

He most clearly identified things that began to turn the tide for black people.

He most clearly lumped homosexuality and bestiality together, though the Bible does not. It was a rant. He was whining about "sins" becoming "fine." It was a rant. The link between homosexuality and bestiality was fully his own.

 

[Denny Crane]

That is ANYONE and EVERYONE then... so you are saying EVERYONE is a bigot then cause everyone holds blindly to at least one belief (if not more)

Duh. I have consistently said that being bigoted doesn't have a bad connotation.

Everyone is a bigot to some degree. If it's only crossing the street to avoid walking by a group of black men; that's a pretty common stereotype.

 

[Rick2583]

He most clearly identified things that began to turn the tide for black people.

He most clearly lumped homosexuality and bestiality together, though the Bible does not. It was a rant. He was whining about "sins" becoming "fine." It was a rant. The link between homosexuality and bestiality was fully his own.

But it was not an unsolicited rant it was a RESPONSE. As far as his linking Homosexuality to bestiality IMO he was just equating animals procreating from behind so in that sense he's really not wrong. I'm not saying its a bad thing but its also not exactly inaccurate.

 

[Denny Crane]

But it was not an unsolicited rant it was a RESPONSE. As far as his linking Homosexuality to bestiality IMO he was just equating animals procreating from behind so in that sense he's really not wrong. I'm not saying its a bad thing but its also not exactly inaccurate.

Sure he was asked questions. His answers proved him a bigot and racist. George W Bush was asked similar questions, and is an evangelist Christian, but never showed anything close to the contempt and disrespect that Robertson did.

Not IMO, he went on a rant and absolutely linked bestiality and homosexuality in a list of "sins" from a tiny excerpt of the New Testament. In the president of A&E's opinion.

The "procreating from behind" thing is rather silly on your part.

 

[Rick2583]

Sure he was asked questions. His answers proved him a bigot and racist. George W Bush was asked similar questions, and is an evangelist Christian, but never showed anything close to the contempt and disrespect that Robertson did.

Not IMO, he went on a rant and absolutely linked bestiality and homosexuality in a list of "sins" from a tiny excerpt of the New Testament. In the president of A&E's opinion.

The "procreating from behind" thing is rather silly on your part.

Or you could look at it as Robertson giving his HONEST opinions while Bush was only saying what he thought people wanted to hear. as far as my procreating from behind as being silly REALLY? When was the last time you saw a animal laying on his back spread eagle while his mate laid on top of him? They do it from behind. The same as I'm assuming gay men do it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Or you could look at it as Robertson giving his HONEST opinions while Bush was only saying what he thought people wanted to hear. as far as my procreating from behind as being silly REALLY? When was the last time you saw a animal laying on his back spread eagle while his mate laid on top of him? They do it from behind. The same as I'm assuming gay men do it.

When was the last time you witnessed gay sex?

If you are making assumptions, then I am right that the "procreating from behind" thing is rather silly on your part.

Me? I don't know what gay or straight people do in the privacy of their own homes, nor do I care. As long as they both consent and nobody's getting physically hurt.

Nobody is saying he has no right to whatever opinions he has, or even to speak up on them. With FREE SPEECH comes consequences, though. If you yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, you may be responsible for people getting trampled, or if you slander someone you can get sued in civil court for it.

His honest opinions are bigoted and racist and A&E should have no part of him for it if they do not share the same views. If those people his venom is directed at feel slighted, they have 1st amendment rights to say so, whether it makes people "sick and tired of this type of thing."

If A&E doesn't want him but some televangelist is willing to put him on the air, so be it.

If the government shuts down his show, tells GQ to remove the article/interview with him, denounces his church, etc., then it's a 1st amendment violation. A&E is not bound by the 1st to give anyone air time to say anything at all.

Ionically, A&E had a big hit with their Bible mini-series. They don't seem unfriendly toward religion (nor am I, really), but they do take exception to Robertson's brand.