Quantcast

«

»

Dec 23 2013

Speaking of stupid arguments with obvious rebuttals…

12 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Naked Bunny with a Whip

    It’s amazing how quickly the conservatives’ support for the right of employers to arbitrarily alter or terminate employment goes out the window when the employee in question is a bigoted wingnut.

  2. 2
    left0ver1under

    Naked Bunny with a Whip (#1) –

    That’s nothing new. Remember the Terri Schiavo case? In March 2005, at the exact same time that the rightwingnuts were trying to prevent Michael Schiavo from making medical decisions, the self same scumbags were preventing a mother in Texas from making medical decisions.

    Sun Hudson’s medical care was removed against his mother’s wishes, killing the boy in the name of profit for the HMO. It set an ugly precedent for future cases, where the wishes and decisions of guardians and family members can be overruled by governments and corporations, very much like what’s going on now with employers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Hudson_case

  3. 3
    holytape

    2#

    But you forget that Sun Hudson was not white and Terri Schiavo was. Which makes them totally different in the minds of the wing nuts.

  4. 4
    barbyau

    And don’t forget ENDA! After successfully making the argument that an employer should have the right to fire a person for being gay, they are now whining that an employer has the right to fire an employee for being anti-gay. Either employers can fire someone for where they stand on the issue or not. Either they can fire employees for opinions voiced or not. The entire jurisprudence philosophy for these guys is, “Them there laws is sposed to hurt THOSE people, not us real Americans!!!”

    So I keep trolling all the Duck Dynasty supporters I am unfortunate enough to cross. I tell them they should be supporting stronger unions and stronger workers’ rights/labor laws if they want to protect individual workers from capricious actions by their employers. I wonder if anyone’s head exploded, for that is commie talk!

  5. 5
    Alexandra (née Audley)

    Come on, if Phil had said something really positive (pro- marriage equality, say), the same people who support Hobby Lobby would be SCREAMING that he doesn’t represent “real America” and that he should be fired for “politicizing” the show. One Million Moms would be boycotting A&E and Rush Limbaugh would be having a fit over liberal Hollywood elites or some shit.

    The only speech these assholes want protected is their own special brand of conservative Christian hate speech. And I’m not talking about First Amendment protections (no one violated Phil’s right to free speech, after all), but they want their opinions to be protected from all potential negative consequences.

  6. 6
    Louis

    It’s not just the US that gets this “argument”. My conservative, Daily Mail reading parents think that disagreeing with them, even politely (DIFFICULT! I AM BECOME SARCASM!) is lefty censorship. Can you tell I am looking forward to Christmas dinner?

    Louis

  7. 7
    nich

    Heh. An offhand comment by the Dixie Chicks at a concert in London bought them months of hell. Where were all these freeze peach crusaders back then? What this jackass is facing is small potatoes compared to what happened to them.

  8. 8
    Kagato

    Where were all these freeze peach crusaders back then?

    Defending the rights of the abusers to hurl abuse, of course.

  9. 9
    Kelseigh

    Kind of surprising to see PZ giving the famously misogynist The Least I Could Do hits, even if he is right on this particular issue. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

  10. 10
    twas brillig (stevem)

    All I can think of when hearing about these dunkin Ducks, is the adage we used to throw around here a lot:

    The right to free speech is NOT the right to force others to listen to your speech.” OR :: “The right to stand on a soapbox (to speak freely), is NOT the right to force someone to give you that soapbox to stand on.”

    No one is saying that Duck doesn’t have the right to have those opinions nor has the right to speak them out-loud, just wondering why A&E would pay him to be on this show that is part of A&E’s reputation. It’s only the wingnuts who yell at A&E for firing him [because they don't want him spoiling their reputation], violating his “freezepeach”. And they keep throwing around the 1st amendment, “Doesn’t the Duck have the right to freezepeach?” But turn it around and have some atheist get fired for expressing his bigoted anti-religion opinions and would any wingnut shout “freezepeach” and demand the atheist be rehired?? $5 says, “No”. Any takers?

  11. 11
    Ichthyic

    It’s not just the US that gets this “argument”. My conservative, Daily Mail reading parents think that disagreeing with them, even politely (DIFFICULT! I AM BECOME SARCASM!) is lefty censorship. Can you tell I am looking forward to Christmas dinner?

    we just ignore the parents.

    seriously.

    we allow them to come visit us once every 6 months or so, never on christmas.

    our holidays are very relaxing. You might try it next year yourself.

    :)

  12. 12
    Rex Little, Giant Douchweasel

    I’m a little behind the curve on this stuff; I never heard of Duck Dynasty til the fallout from Robertson’s remarks started showing up in headlines on my browser’s homepage. Had to Google it to find out what the show is about, and I’m still trying to get my head around the idea that someone could turn duck calls into a TV series with more than 3 viewers.

Comments have been disabled.