Phil Robertson returns to A&E Duck Dynasty

[ambrosia]

Wow ... imagine that. Another person who thinks its a waste of time posting in this thread.

Ahem, read it again, I said I didn't want to bother to watch the video. I didn't say anything about posting in this thread. Your reading comprehension skills are truly horrific.

 

[Foxrac]

Ahem, read it again, I said I didn't want to bother to watch the video. I didn't day anything about posting in this thread. Your reading comprehension skills are truly horrific.

Oh wow, that's not nice and I will knock your wooden door too loudly for insult Stein.

 

[Steinhauer]

Ahem, read it again, I said I didn't want to bother to watch the video. I didn't say anything about posting in this thread. Your reading comprehension skills are truly horrific.

Eisegesis much? because whatever mud you are attempting to sling at Phil Robertson is not going to do any good. You guys lost the debate. Phil is back on the show.

 

[ambrosia]

Eisegesis much? because whatever mud you are attempting to sling at Phil Robertson is not going to do any good. You guys lost the debate. Phil is back on the show.

I never said he should be taken off, never have an opinion either way. The only point point I made was that it didn't violate his rights, and A&E was within theirs. That's it. Don't care one way or the other, I was just giving more details to what benonang was referring to.

 

[ambrosia]

Oh wow, that's not nice and I will knock your wooden door too loudly for insult Stein.

Considering how many times he's referred to me as a stupid blonde, I'm not feeling bad here

 

[CrazyPaul]

Eisegesis much? because whatever mud you are attempting to sling at Phil Robertson is not going to do any good. You guys lost the debate. Phil is back on the show.

So what? He still sucks.

 

[Steinhauer]

I never said he should be taken off, never have an opinion either way. The only point point I made was that it didn't violate his rights, and A&E was within theirs. That's it. Don't care one way or the other, I was just giving more details to what benonang was referring to.

Oooooohhh, so that's why you chimed in and tried to sling mud at Phil?

I can see you don't care either way.

And perhaps you might reconsider that the fact A&E decided to lift the suspension is because an attorney told them they were not within their rights ... it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (you know ... the law Republicans passed) ....

 

[Foxrac]

Oooooohhh, so that's why you chimed in and tried to sling mud at Phil?

I can see you don't care either way.

And perhaps you might reconsider that the fact A&E decided to lift the suspension is because an attorney told them they were not within their rights ... it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (you know ... the law Republicans passed) ....

OH MY GOD in LOUD!!!

Do you have a link about what attorney said about civil rights?

Civil Rights Act was passed by bipartisanship.

 

[ambrosia]

Oooooohhh, so that's why you chimed in and tried to sling mud at Phil?

I can see you don't care either way.

And perhaps you might reconsider that the fact A&E decided to lift the suspension is because an attorney told them they were not within their rights ... it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (you know ... the law Republicans passed) ....

Somebody mentioned what he's in the news for now....I elaborated on, have more details of what he said, he said it not me did I say he should be taken off the air??? Noooooooo. He's a nasty little bastard but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be on TV there's a lot of stuff on TV I wouldn't care to watch honey boo boo anyone??? Actually any reality TV stuff except the stuff on HGTV, I like that most of it though I'd rather watch grass grow.

 

[Steinhauer]

OH MY GOD in LOUD!!!

Do you have a link about what attorney said about civil rights?

Civil Rights Act was passed by bipartisanship.

It actually wasn't bipartisan. Without getting too political, just research what the longest filibuster of our Nation's history was.

Also, the important aspect of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I was pointing out is that it is a violation to discriminate against a person based on their Constitutional right to ....and get this ....religious expression (gasp). You can look all this up yourself.

 

[Foxrac]

It actually wasn't bipartisan. Without getting too political, just research what the longest filibuster of our Nation's history was.

Also, the important aspect of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I was pointing out is that it is a violation to discriminate against a person based on their Constitutional right to ....and get this ....religious expression (gasp). You can look all this up yourself.

Incorrect, check the vote record - Civil Rights Act was passed with bipartisan, especially democrats and republicans from northern and midwestern states, but democrats and republicans from southern states opposed it.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).

By party[edit]

The original House version:[19]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[20]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[19]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

By party and region[edit]

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

It is more geographical driven - Do you see a link above - look at southern democrats and southern republicans?

Northern democrats and southern democrats are politically difference, especially racial, tax and regulation. Northern democrats are more like Obama - support high tax, against racism and more regulation, so southern democrats support low tax, less regulation, support racism but today, southern democrats became southern republicans as they are starting against the racism, but still support low tax and less regulation.

The employers can fire you for make a offensive comment, regardless on religious belief - according to my mother who works as director and she deal with court cases from employees who filed the discrimination and EEOC will not find your ground, but if you are discriminated because your religion is simply Christian so that will be violation of civil rights, but make a offensive comment is not.

 

[Reba]

It was video from 2009, he recommends that men should marry girls when they're 15 or 16, and something about them plucking their ducks. He also advises that men should check that these 15/16 year old girls can cook a meal, try to eat something she made before you marry her, and make sure she carries a bible around with her.

Blech

I'd post a link but I'm on my phone, besides you all have access to google, all kind of links fir it and a video on YouTube apparently, I haven't watched it, it may or may not have CC. I'm not going to look though, I just don't care that much

Oh but he does recommend that they check with her parents first......so I guess there's that.

You know a lot more about DD than I do.

 

[ambrosia]

You know a lot more about DD than I do.

It took seconds on google.

 

[Reba]

It took seconds on google.

I guess you're more interested in them than I am.

 

[ambrosia]

I guess you're more interested in them than I am.

Nah, but I am bored I'd seen a meme about it on Facebook and at least new he was talking about 15/16 yos.... and noticed that a lot of details were missing. Since you guys were talking about I thought I'd give you a little more info. That's all, just helping you guys out.

 

[Steinhauer]

Incorrect, check the vote record - Civil Rights Act was passed with bipartisan, especially democrats and republicans from northern and midwestern states, but democrats and republicans from southern states opposed it.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It is more geographical driven - Do you see a link above - look at southern democrats and southern republicans?

Northern democrats and southern democrats are politically difference, especially racial, tax and regulation. Northern democrats are more like Obama - support high tax, against racism and more regulation, so southern democrats support low tax, less regulation, support racism but today, southern democrats became southern republicans as they are starting against the racism, but still support low tax and less regulation.

The employers can fire you for make a offensive comment, regardless on religious belief - according to my mother who works as director and she deal with court cases from employees who filed the discrimination and EEOC will not find your ground, but if you are discriminated because your religion is simply Christian so that will be violation of civil rights, but make a offensive comment is not.

You kind of have it backwards ---but I won't get into it as that will make this a political thread.

 

[Beowulf]

I know zip about this show since I have never seen it.
Meh.
Now back to Spongebob Squarepants...

 

[Foxrac]

You kind of have it backwards ---but I won't get into it as that will make this a political thread.

No, I gave an clearly accurate information about who voted for Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that's not my opinion. I included vote statistic that showed bipartisan with strongly geographic divide (north vs. south), so it looks like you have difficult to accept these statement and the history can be painful and brutal. The definition of bipartisan means bill supported by mostly democrats and republicans combined, but if you say it is not bipartisan so it means non-southern democrats would not vote, along with southerners so it doesn't make sense. Go check the vote statistic.

I'm not going waste my time if you choose to deny this fact and there are many people know about who voted for Civil Rights Act. I didn't offend you at first place so why would you see me as backwards.

Note: You chose to brought it up with #87 and if you didn't at first place, so we don't see any argument.

 

[Foxrac]

With civil rights marches and racial violence dominating the news, the issue of African Americans’ legal rights could no longer be ignored. A civil rights bill proposed by congressional Democrats and supported by the White House had just passed the House of Representatives when, in early 1964, the Senate took it up for debate. Twenty-one of the Senate’s 67 Democrats were from the South and publicly opposed the bill; as a bloc they began what became the longest filibuster in Senate history. The Senate’s Democratic leaders needed Republican votes to stop the filibuster and Democratic majority leader Mike Mansfield asked his counterpart, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen to step in: "I appeal to the distinguished minority leader whose patriotism has always taken precedence over his partisanship, to join with me ... in finding the Senate's best contribution ... to the resolution of this grave national issue," Mansfield said. Dirksen did more than join with Mansfield -- he exhorted his colleagues to end not just the filibuster but America’s difficult past and bring the Civil Rights Act to a vote. "I appeal to all Senators,” he told the chamber. “We are confronted with a moral issue. Today let us not be found wanting ..." With Dirksen’s leadership, 27 Republican senators joined 44 Democrats to end debate on June 10, 1964; the bill passed nine days later.

Bipartisan Policy Center

In early 1964, the House passed a strong civil rights bill by an overwhelming 290-to-130 margin with bipartisan support from 152 Democrats and 138 Republicans. But since the Senate had killed nearly all civil rights legislation for decades, the real battle had just begun. Immediately following passage of the House bill, President Johnson urged Majority Whip Humphrey to spend time with Minority Leader Dirksen, who was the key to passing the bill in the Senate, “You’ve got to let him have a piece of the action. You drink with Dirksen! You talk with Dirksen! You listen to Dirksen!”

Effective Bipartisan Leadership | peoriamagazines.com

The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill. - See more at: Congress: The Basics > Lawmaking [Resources] > Narrative:*The Civil Rights Act of 1964 > Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

After criticizing H. R. 7152 in March, Dirksen began to work more closely in late spring with Humphrey and the civil rights forces to fashion a strategy that would secure passage of the bill. Dirksen organized Republican support for the bill by designating a floor captain for each of the bill's seven sections. He and the bipartisan leaders believed that five or six "swing" votes held the key to cloture and the end of debate. Almost all of these uncommitted senators were conservative Republicans from rural states without racial difficulties. Their constituents opposed the legislation because it involved expanded federal powers. The problem facing the leadership was how to enlist the support of these uncommitted senators. - See more at: Congress: The Basics > Lawmaking [Resources] > Narrative:*The Civil Rights Act of 1964 > Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Under the Senate rules, after cloture is invoked each senator may speak for one hour on the bill or pending amendments. Although southerners called up many amendments between June 10 and June 17 to stall action further, the Senate leadership allowed only those it wanted to be adopted. Most of the amendments were defeated by large margins. On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage. In all, the the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record. - See more at: Congress: The Basics > Lawmaking [Resources] > Narrative:*The Civil Rights Act of 1964 > Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Congress: The Basics > Lawmaking [Resources] > Narrative:*The Civil Rights Act of 1964 > Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act was one of biggest part in my English course and my English professor stated it was bipartisan with geographical difference. I'm not stupid and not fooled by someone said it wasn't.

Sorry about not related to Duck Dynasty and I have put more interesting information, so let back on topic.

 

[VacationGuy234]

I'd post a link but I'm on my phone

Here is link with an article because I'm not sure the video is captioned:
Phil Robertson Suggests Guys Marry 15-Year-Old Girls in Newly Surfaced Preaching Video

I guess some on here will be happy with the cooking requirement at least.