AndyBoyd

How about congratulating the person, shaking his or her hand, and maybe buying them a beer? I've never understood the need to splatter food all over someone who just reached a significant milestone. Seems to me like a sincere congratulation might be the more respectful move. I know it's tradition. I just don't get it.

You are 100% correct. My apologies, Ron. I will take some time off dz.com now.

Great to see you have a sense of humor after all. That video remind you of your hometown? Some. Were your parents related before they got married?

I'm sure you're right. Maybe I'll take a canoe trip to one of those nice places next summer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myhnAZFR1po Enjoy the scenery, the mountains and all they have to offer. Use caution when presenting yourself to the locals. Great to see you have a sense of humor after all. That video remind you of your hometown?

I'm sure you're right. Maybe I'll take a canoe trip to one of those nice places next summer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myhnAZFR1po

This from a guy who thinks girls should be married and making babies at 15. Well, white girls. Only if they have been raised in loving homes with strong family values and been properly trained to be wives and mothers. If you have any daughters, I feel very sorry for them.

You are more correct than you realize. A prosecutor's responsibility is not, in fact, to get convictions. It is to "seek justice." The ethics statement is admirable and exactly what I'd hope for... yet the primary metric in assessing a successful career is "percent convictions" it's a nice statement of intent, but is it true in real life practice? I've never been a prosecutor, so it's hard to say for certain. The majority of the prosecutors I've run into are ethical people. There is always a minority who push the envelope. I know that's a wishy-washy answer, but that's all I've got. There's no way to answer your question with a clear "yes" or "no."

You are more correct than you realize. A prosecutor's responsibility is not, in fact, to get convictions. It is to "seek justice." Prosecutors have different ethical obligations that defense attorneys. The linked article describes the difference between the prosecutor's obligations and the defense attorney's obligations, and the reasons for the difference. http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_20_2_ethics.html For those who don't care to read the whole article, here is the key part: The government’s overarching interest in justice. A primary rationale for requiring a prosecutor at times to act differently than a defense lawyer flows from the fact that a prosecutor represents the government and not an individual client. All lawyers must under Model Rule 1.2 allow the client to determine the objectives of the representation. Usually, a client charged with a crime directs the lawyer to seek acquittal on any charges and to minimize punishment if convicted, regardless of the client’s guilt or the punishment the client may deserve. When the client is the government, determining the client’s interests is not so simple. In representing the government, a prosecutor represents all of the citizenry—including, in a sense, the accused. In this role of representing the citizenry, a prosecutor must decide what is in the public’s interest and then advance that position.

This. There's a difference between an innocent person and one that is convicted of a particular crime they did not commit. Some might just call it karma.

This. There's a difference between an innocent person and one that is convicted of a particular crime they did not commit. Some might just call it karma.

OK, I just watched the entire live speech where he said that. What sad is you needed validation so bad you watched the whole interview so you can jump on the bandwagon of hating phil robertson for anything he says because you don't agree with his viewpoints. Feel free to get a life at any time. Nobody cares. Andy - apparently you can't win. First, you're wrong because you must have taken the remark out of context, due to those commies at CNN. But having taken rush's suggestion to watch it completely, you're now without a life. Yep, that about sums it up. Well done, kelpdiver. I'll go look for my life now. I'm pretty sure I had one once...

OK, I just watched the entire live speech where he said that. Nothing was taken out of context in the article. He said what he said, which was that it is a good idea to marry 15 or 16 year old girls, because when girls got to be 20 they would be too old to marry. The audience responded with nervous and tentative laughter, which clearly indicated they were uncomfortable with those comments. Anyone with half a brain in his head would be uncomfortable with those comments as well. Can't blame this one on the big bad media.

This is a direct quote from the article cited. "Look, you wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket," he said. "You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16. They'll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course." Are you sure you really want to follow Ron into this hole?

Well, don't say you weren't warned. I used to think you were just a right-wing religious nut. Now I think you are a pathetic creep. I cannot fathom how you justify your attitude towards young teenage girls with your supposed Christian beliefs. You have some very serious soul-searching to do.

Your hero is advocating marrying 15 and 16 year old girls. You seem to support that in a recent post. It is unlawful to engage in sexual contact with girls that young in most states. You therefore seem to be advocating criminal activity of a very serious nature here. Please be careful and think about deleting that post. This is a public forum. Anyone can read your posts. The mods may want to get a handle on this part of the thread.

What does American beer and sex in a canoe have in commun? They're both fucking close to water. If you insist on drinking Miller lite, yeah. There are lots of outstanding American craft beers available across the USA, even in the Tuscon area. http://noblehopspub.com/

So this seems like a good idea to you?

At some point you have to make a moral judgment. When you do that, the intolerance of guys like this Duck Dynasty dipshit become offensive and wrong. A previous poster called you the dumbest smart guy he ever saw. He was right. As much as I disagree with Rushmc, at least the guy takes a stand. You just twist yourself up into intellectual knots with word games. You are completely overthinking this tolerance/intolerance thing. Some friendly advice, relax, take a step back, find your core principals, and move out from there. Stop the silly word games. You are trying way too hard.

So a person for whom tolerance is a value must be tolerant of those who are intolerant? Your argument has some logical force, I concede. But how, then, does a tolerant person express disapproval of a racist or a homophobe? On your logic, the truly tolerant person can never do this, but instead must stay silent even when faced with viewpoints directly opposed to their values. How can change ever happen on your logic, where no one can ever stand up to the bigot and say, no, your attitude is wrong and hurtful, and we will not tolerate it? ^^ This. This is kind of what I was trying to ask, but couldn't put together in words as nicely as Andy :) Thank you for your kind words. We are still awaiting a response.

Well, I concede that I could have misinterpreted his post. He is welcome to clarify his post, or explain why he thinks I am wrong. Judging from the content of his previous posts, he is fully capable of doing that. If he thinks I was mistaken in some way, he'll let me know. To respond to your argument, A & E does not need this guy anywhere near as badly as you seem to think. There will always be another crop of attention seeking nitwits to populate TV reality shows. See Jersey Shore. They will find someone equally amusing very soon.

Bro, give it up. Of course you are right, but it doesn't matter to Ron. Arguing with him is pointless. It's like banging your head against a wall. It will only feel better when you stop.

So a person for whom tolerance is a value must be tolerant of those who are intolerant? Your argument has some logical force, I concede. But how, then, does a tolerant person express disapproval of a racist or a homophobe? On your logic, the truly tolerant person can never do this, but instead must stay silent even when faced with viewpoints directly opposed to their values. How can change ever happen on your logic, where no one can ever stand up to the bigot and say, no, your attitude is wrong and hurtful, and we will not tolerate it?

This is not a direct reply to the last post. Just jumping in here. My take on this is that the guy was suspended for making some very offensive comments about gays and blacks. He compared homosexuality to bestiality, and stated that blacks were happy in the Jim Crow/sharecropper era. Those are really nasty, offensive statements. Those statements are different from intelligently and reasonably expressing a conservative viewpoint. Conservatives arguing that this guy is being punished for simply expressing his views seem to ignore the offensive nature of his statements. I would think that even reasonable conservatives would find his comments offensive. Some posters here have stated that this guy is not just a "redneck," but is an intelligent guy. I don't know because I don't watch the show and I'm not familiar with this guy. If he is a bright guy, surely he could have avoided such patently offensive remarks and stated his position more reasonably. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think he got punished for being a conservative. He was punished for making horribly offensive remarks. Anyone who makes those types of remarks, wherever they are on the conservative-liberal spectrum, deserves what they get

You're wrong on this one, and you're smart enough to know you're wrong. You're just flailing now. My part of this conversation is done. Keep flailing away if you like.

For the third time, I was NOT making a religious argument. Can you really not grasp the difference between a historical fact and an article of faith? There are numerous historical sources other than the bible that refer to Jesus the human being. The Aslan book lists these sources. I'm not "spinning" anything. Your argument that Jesus was not an actual historical figure is flat out wrong.