• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

why is it?

Steve

Well-known member
Why is it liberals are defending A&E but will not honestly answer why they disagree with Robertson's' comments?


I pretty much agree with how he answered the question...

maybe one of those free independent speaking types can get out of lockstep for a minute and explain to US folk what part of what Robertson said was so offensive and why they disagree with him on that issue..

I really don't expect an answer cause I would bet they would agree with what Robertson said, but are to much in lockstep to honestly answer..
 

Larrry

Well-known member
There was a quote in the interview and it went something like...it wasnt for him to judge everyone. That power was above him. Somehow that is never mentioned
 

Steve

Well-known member
Duck Hunt: The Phil Robertson 'GQ' Quote the Media Refuse to Report

By extrapolating quotes and just plain old lying, the elite media are using a GQ interview with "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson as an excuse to go on an anti-Christian rampage that they hope will further their longstanding goal of toxifying Biblical beliefs as bigoted and anti-gay. If you read the full GQ interview, though, it is glaringly obvious that Robertson is anti-sin, not anti-gay, and that he believes we should all love one another.

Here's the most important thing: in the article, Robertson said this just before he talked at length about sin.

"We're Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television...

"You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around."

"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?"

so far there is nothing in it that I disagree with.. so what was so offensive?

what point do the liberals, libertarian independents say is so offensive?

because so far I agree with pretty much everything Phil Robertson said..

if these other folk on here are so offended then what is it that offends you?
 
Top