MSNBC hired Alec Baldwin for what ended up being a short-lived talk show after the actor made his first round of gay slurs, but obviously there are people at the cable net who have very short-term memories:

Well alrighty then.

  • TheOriginalDonald

    PMSNBC better remember the old adage about those in glass houses……

  • JD

    Clearly MSNBC is intellectophobic

  • logicrules

    Sheez… next to “racism”, “homophobia” is the most dishonestly used word of our time.

    • NRPax

      Given that it’s a fake word, it’s hard to use it dishonestly. But it is as worn out as racism.

    • $84598387

      Nothing he said was offensive to anyone but those with an ax to grind.

  • H50 ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Morons

    • drw

      A direct and unjust slur against morons everywhere.

  • $84598387

    Coming in January to A&E. Butt Dynasty starring Stephon Richard and Maurice filmed on location in Key West.

  • Clete Torres

    Offense is highly subjective with the left and it’s mouthpieces, isn’t it?

  • Avniel

    It’s television, it’s not real. If you watch television, you are deceived.

  • Matthew Koch

    Being homophobic implies that you hate gay people.

    Disagreeing with or criticizing someone’s behavior does not mean that you hate them.

    • Maxwell

      Homophobic doesn’t even mean that. Homophobic implies you are scared of homosexuals. Heterosexist means you hate them.

      If a person is going to accuse another of being something, they should accuse them correctly.

      • Matthew Koch

        True that. Thanks for the correction.

      • Gene Ricky Shaw

        Actually, “homophobic” used to mean a number of things; men being afraid of being thought of as homosexual, being afraid of homosexuals themselves and being afraid that you are homosexual. Naturally, most of those are pretty dubious fears, but in theory, they could be real.

        Of course, it’s now used as a derogatory term to try to shut people up.

      • randigb

        According to Webster’s, homophobia means: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals .

        The definition of aversion is: a strong feeling of not liking something. Hate is also defined as a strong feeling of not liking something.

        Heterosexism is discrimination against homosexuals by heterosexuals. No mention of the word “hate” in the definition of heterosexism. There is also no mention of “hate” in the definition of discrimination.

        So Matthew’s comment is correct as is yours, up to your use of heterosexist.

        • bobmead1960

          Who is afraid of homosexual activity? They got AIDS for their actions which God condemns, I just stand by his evaluation. I love the homosexual person, I just hate the sin they commit. God says abhor that which is evil. I even hate many of the sins I commit. I am far from perfect!

    • Doc Farmer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Actually, homoaedic would be the more correct term. Aedia is the Greek root word for “disgust”. Most folks find homosexual acts/practices disgusting. They’re not afraid of the homosexual act. And it’s okay to be disgusted by things. I’m liveraedic and beetaedic, not liverphobic and beetphobic. Don’t want to be involved with things that disgust me, but I understand other people actually LIKE that stuff. Which is fine, they can have my serving…

  • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

    I was done with that crap after saying that while I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms, personally I wasn’t attracted to bisexual guys. I was labeled a homophobe and that was the end of that argument and my interest in that whole thing.

    Tolerance does not mean what you think it means.

    • Matthew Koch

      How could it be homophobic to be a woman, and only want to focus your attention on straight men? I would love to know what their reasoning was.

      Not that leftists use reason when making an argument.

      • NRPax

        Let me try to help.

        Unless you embrace homosexuals and celebrate their beautiful lifestyle with the devotion of a Muslim’s prayer requirements, you are a H8R and you deserve to be killed because you’re not tolerant enough.

        If that’s not clear enough, I’d be happy to take questions. -:-)

        • WhoDat

          Celebrate? No. Accept they exist and repeal laws that make them unable to live freely? Yes.

          • Spiny Norman

            Laws against sodomy were repealed decades ago. They have lived freely in this country for years – google “zombietime” and “Folsom Street Fair” if you don’t believe me.

            Besides, show me where Phil Robertson said homosexuals should not exist. Believing their behavior is “sinful” is not the same thing, in case you were headed that way.

          • WhoDat

            Laws against sodomy were repealed barely a decade ago, but it’s still on the books in many states.

            Laws denying marriage rights to gay people still exist in 2/3 of the states.

            Phil didn’t say they shouldn’t exist.

          • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil ✓Mate

            No homosexual had ever been denied marriage under existing laws. They want laws changed and words legally redefined to cater to their lifestyle choices.

          • WhoDat

            Gay people are denied the ability to marry the person they love all the time.

            Please tell me when you made the choice to be straight.

          • Newtie and the Beauty

            What specious statements.

          • Maxwell

            When I turned down the three gay guys who were hitting on me at the bar a few weeks ago.

          • Gene Ricky Shaw

            Please show me the gene that says a person is gay, bisexual or transgender.

          • drw

            Marriage can only be valid between two people who by natural law can procreate. That is a tradition that extends to the dawn of civilization. I have no problems with civil unions but calling it marriage is not acceptable. If you allow same-sex marriage you dilute the meaning such that it loses its sincerity. Beyond that, if you allow same-sex you cannot then prohibit multiple-partner or even reasonably restrict species. Why does that specific term matter so much that you are willing to destroy a tradition of such importance?

          • WhoDat

            By that logic, opposite sex married couples who don’t want or can’t have children aren’t really married.

            Same-sex couples won’t dilute the meaning of an institution any more than the Kim Kardashians, Rush Limbaughs, and Newt Gingrichs of the world already have.

            Animals aren’t human and therefore can’t consent to a marriage to a human.

          • drw

            You’re reaching, I expected a bit more from you and am disappointed. Your obfuscation of my statement is typical of many leftist’s tendency to avoid the obvious and redirect the argument beyond the original intent of the issue. I have no desire to play this game, if you haven’t the capacity to understand the nature of my post the problem lies with you.

          • M Green

            WhoDat: All elephants may be gray, but not all gray things are elephants.

          • petie3

            Go to a Muslim country and see where the word ‘consent’ has anything to do with it.

          • SpiffyMclure

            “Marriage can only be valid between two people who by natural law can procreate.”

            I married my wife when she was too old to conceive, and even if she could, wouldn’t have been able to go to term. You saying my marriage isn’t valid?

            I’ll have to tell the Mrs.

          • drw

            That was a lame interpretation of my statement even considering who made it. The adults are having a discussion, please stop interrupting.

          • SpiffyMclure

            No actually, your statement was lame. You didn’t think about all the couples who can’t have kids, before saying something that implied their marriages weren’t valid.

            It’s all cool though – maybe next time you will.

          • drw

            I’ll tell you what, just to please you I’ll revise my opening statement so that those of you with lesser minds can understand. How’s this “Marriage can only be valid between two people who, by natural law, should have the ability to procreate. Does that suit? Had you the capacity for intelligent thought, you would have understood the “natural law” portion of my statement. But please, continue embarrassing yourself, I find it amusing.

          • SpiffyMclure

            Suit yourself Dude. Here’s what you really mean – marriage should between a man and a woman. Don’t understand why you just don’t cut to the chase and say that. You’d save yourself a lot of time not having to explain nuance to dopes like me.

            And you amuse me back, if that’s important to you.

          • drw

            I’m impressed that it only took you 10 hours to get that point. What’s not surprising is your failure to acknowledge the justification.

          • SpiffyMclure

            10 hours you say. Can’t count either, huh?

          • drw

            That’s hilarious!

          • bobmead1960

            Read Romans 1 “it says men and women were carried away by their lust, and gave themselves over to unnatural acts. verses 24-28. Truth is truth. Love you but not the action.

          • Zach Brewer

            Shouldn’t you be more worried about Islam and how Muslims under Sharia law stone gay people?

            Last time I checked, Christians weren’t killing gays.

          • petie3

            But there is a long standing tradition of buggering little boys. I guess it depends on who has the rocks.

          • Scott

            That’s a BS comment! As if I were to say all homosexuals are pedophiles! A few bad of anything doesn’t make the whole lot bad! What a douchebag!

          • RW Goodwin

            They should be denied marriage. It is sin and sin should never be legal… No one is born gay – it is their choice – a choice of rebellion, a choice to live life of sin… It is demonic.

          • petie3

            Again it’s not a question of legal/illegal, it’s good vs evil. Lots of legal things are evil.

          • tops116 ✓Quipper

            “Phil didn’t say they shouldn’t exist.”

            Neither did Democrats who voted for said laws or simply supported them until it became politically inconvenient. Remember when Hillary tried to blame “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Bush? Good times, good times.

          • bobmead1960

            For gays to flaunt themselves in the Thanksgiving parades was ludicrous. Stop the insanity. If you want to practice insane sex than do it in your bedroom. We don’t want to see or hear about it. That goes for Mardi Gras also!

          • Scott

            And in some states it’s illegal to have a cow in your basement. The argument is not about the laws on the books today, it’s about free speech. He said that he doesn’t hate homosexuals, he doesn’t agree with homosexuality, because in his faith it is a sin. Big difference! Where is all the uproar of muslims wanting Sharia Law in America? If that were to happen, Phil would be the least of homosexual’s (women’s, Catholic’s Jews’ etc.) problems!

          • WhoDat

            Please show me some examples of “Muslims wanting Sharia law”.

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

            I accept they exist. And I couldn’t care less who is gay and who isn’t because none of my business. But apparently to be tolerant one must actively participate or at the very least like the whole thing. Care to explain why? It’s just not my thing. So why am I not allowed my preferences?

          • logicrules

            I accept that schizophrenics exist. I even accept that they are inevitably “natural”, biologically. That I must therefore consider them to be equally viable, or merely alternatively equal, does not necessarily follow.

          • AZWarrior

            … and I don’t celebrate the voices in their heads by giving them “rights” they haven’t earned. :-)

          • NRPax

            I was blissfully unaware that Phil Robertson was a law maker of any kind. But then again, I haven’t lived in Louisiana for years so I’m not up to date on these things.

        • Matthew Koch

          Just one question NRPax.

          When praying towards the high altar of tolerance, acceptance, and diversity, how many times a day should we pray?

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

            24/7. HTH

          • NRPax

            As many times as required until you have atoned for your incorrect thoughts. If you’re a white male like myself, set about 5-6 times a day aside.

      • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

        The reasoning was the same as anyone who criticizes Barack = racist. An army of straw men and dkljfhasdjfh asdkjhaslkjh logic.

        • Matthew Koch

          Of course. I should have known. Thanks BlahBlah.

  • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    “Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson is a man of many words. And some of those words are homophobic…”

    Oh jeez, that’s a “neutral” way of putting it, right, “legitimate news outlet”?

    “Lindsay Crouse’s Law” strikes again– see, you could have said, ” … [A]nd some of those words might offend gays. [link]” But you didn’t.

    You cracked outta turn, and you crumbed the play.

    • Doc Farmer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Looks like the H’Wood reporter is seeing some backlash on their article. See screenshot below from 06:08 this morning…

      • Clete Torres

        Over 30k now:

  • Jarhead83

    …says the network with 28 viewers.

    • Matthew Koch

      This thread has more commenters than they have viewers.

    • journogal

      That’s being charitable…

  • Bklynnygirl

    MSNBC… Kind of like Al Sharpton.

  • zgary

    As a gay man I have no problem with what was said by a cast member of D.D. In my opinion he is “tolerant”. Liberals have changed the the meaning of “tolerance” to mean “acceptance” when actually the correct definition (of tolerance) is basically to “deal” with something or someone you don’t particularly care for. GLAAD and HRC have their panties constantly in a knot. Can’t stand them…but I must “tolerate” them because that is what reasonable, thoughtful and tolerant people do.

    • Maxx

      Very well articulated. Thank you. It is pathetic that the fringe element of society has hijacked the word tolerance and redefined it as “our way or the highway.”

      • zgary

        Thanks Bud!!

    • https://twitter.com/UnicornOfMayhem Hi This Is My Username

      Very well said. I’m glad not everyone is fooled. That gives me hope for humanity. Thank you.

      • zgary

        Thanks!

    • StarDustAlley

      Awesome.

    • Jennifer Roth Jones

      Thank you zgary! I don’t feel that Phil is not tolerant as well. He stated his opinion, but he’s not saying, “Kill them…kill them all” . It is the organizations that have become intolerant of any other’s opinion that doesn’t coincide with their opinions.

    • TroyGates

      What bothers me is GLAADs statement said that Robertson was “pushing” his intolerant ideals. He simply answered a question asked “What do you consider to be a sin”. How is that “pushing”?

    • nc ✓s & balances

      Too often the “acceptance” feels more like force (as in shutting down bakeries and wedding photographers who don’t comply). And the – yes – brainwashing of our children is downright scary, because we are entering into an untested social experiment that will have unknown consequences.

      What adults do in the privacy of their homes is their own business. Acceptance and yes, tolerance, would go a long way if people would just mind their own business and treat each other with respect and kindness.

      Thank you for your comments, zgary.

  • Guest

    This is a prime example of Liberal “tolerance”…
    Everyone’s views are tolerated, so long as they are 100% in lock-step with the “accepted” views…

  • Buffalobob

    MSNBC is Bill Gates still affiliated with this looser?

    • TroyGates

      Nope, Microsoft jumped ship a while ago but MSNBC didn’t drop the MS part.

  • TDS

    This is a prime example of Liberal “tolerance”…
    Everyone’s views are tolerated, so long as they are 100% in lock-step with the “accepted” views…

    • SWohio

      Exactly. The LGBT minority screeched and A&E jumped, asking ‘how high’.

      They can rely on the intolerant left to support their programming from now on. It worked so well for the DIxie Chicks!

  • https://twitter.com/UnicornOfMayhem Hi This Is My Username

    You can always count on MSNBC to put their foot in their mouth. That’s all they have going for them.

  • © Sponge

    Not so much. I’m sure he’s not afraid of gays as the phobic moniker would imply. Its just against his beliefs. He’s perfectly entitled to feel that way. Those that scream for tolerance are usually the least tolerant.

  • stuckinIL4now

    MSNBC beclowning itself again–it’s good to stick with your strengths.

  • waterytart

    Another instance of “pro Christian” into “anti gay”. I didn’t hear him use any slurs or say his favorite hobby is gay bashing, he stated his position based on his beliefs.

  • SpiffyMclure

    If we’re playing the whataboutery game, MSNBC fired Alec Baldwin for his remarks. Lots of people around here though that was great, if memory serves.

    • TroyGates

      Baldwin didn’t make remarks, he used demeaning slurs in a fit of rage at someone. Robertson answered a question from a magazine editor about what he considered to be a sin. Huge difference.

      • SpiffyMclure

        Baldwin got fired for *what* he said, not how he said it, how loud he said or in what context he said it. Personally, I don’t think any of them should have been axed – including ZZ Top throwback guy – but holding different people to different standards and then trying to pretzel-logic as to the reasons why you support one firing, while condemning another, is a bit disingenuous no?

        • nickdqwk

          Baldwin was in attack mode! Phil was in honestly answering question, and referring to Biblical teaching mode.

          • SpiffyMclure

            Baldwin’s a moron, and I hate defending him, but he was in “attack mode” because he felt his wife & child were in jeopardy. Most don’t fault him for being pissed at the photographer – I’d have been too – they were pissed about *what* he said, not *why* he said it. And the network canned him for it, rendering the point of this post – that MSNBC is being hypocritical – moot.

        • TroyGates

          Baldwin and Bashir both used their statements in a derogatory way at a specific person with the intention to harm them verbally. Robertson answered a question to what he believed to be a sin with no reference to a specific person with no intended harm. Where is this “pretzel-logic” you refer to?

          • SpiffyMclure

            The title of this post is:

            “Self awareness fail: Cable net that hired Alec Baldwin offended by ‘homophobic’ Phil Roberston.”

            That would make only sense *if* MSNBC hired Baldwin *after* he made his comments and *then* called Roberstson homophobic. But that’s not what happened, is it? MSNBC fired Baldwin *because* he made his comments and in fairly short order. Because lots of people were upset by *what* he said and thought it was homophobic.

            ZZ Top throwback guy said some stuff that’s offensive to a lot of people. He was talking about people’s butt holes for heavens sake. Then he said that homosexuality leads to bestiality. Which is definitely homophobic, because it’s not true. You’re right – he didn’t target one specific person, just *everyone* that’s gay, anyone who has a loved one that’s gay and people who are opposed to anti-gay bigotry. And it was guaranteed to get a lot of people revved up, just like Baldwin did when he said something stupid.

            You think Baldwin is bad for making a statement that’s arguably homophobic, and think his firing was groovy, but give ZZ Top guy a pass for the same thing, because Bible, Christian or something.

            Pretzel-logic.

          • TroyGates

            You need to learn to read and comprehend…

            He did not say that homosexuality leads to bestiality. He gave a list of items he believes are sins. A list, not a comparison.

            In the interview, when asked about sin of what’s right and what’s wrong. He replied:

            “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he said.
            “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that
            woman and those men.”

            His list starts with homosexual behavior, the list then continues with bestiality, unmarried sex (sleeping with multiple partners) and again homosexual (men).

            Where does he say homosexuality leads to bestiality?

          • SpiffyMclure

            I can read and comprehend just fine thanks.

            Where does he say homosexuality leads to bestiality? I don’t have to Google it, I’ll just cut-and-paste your comment:

            “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he said. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

            Morph means change into. So to be pedantic about it, ZZ Top guy said that homosexual behavior changes into bestiality.

            If we’re going to nit-pick.

          • TroyGates

            “morphs into” is in reference to the list of sins changing. You need to read the question and then read his answer to understand he is referencing to a LIST of sins (aka in context). The LIST “morphs” from one type of sin (homosexual) into another type of sin (bestiality) and then into another (multiple partners). All of these are differnet types of sexual sins in a LIST, thus why the LIST “morphs” from one type to another.

          • SpiffyMclure

            Wow, that’s a lot of interpretive twisting and turning to try and explain why something that someone said, isn’t really what they said.

            In other words, pretzel-logic.

            BTW – nowhere does it say that lady-on-lady loving is a ‘sexual sin,’ so you and ZZ Top guy got that wrong. Just saying.

          • grais

            He did NOT say that homosexuality leads to bestiality. I don’t know which of the manipulative media have convinced you that he did, but if you’d read the actual GQ article….
            And speaking of butt holes; who’s offended by the mention and how offensive is it? Was it indelicate or a bit distasteful? Sure. Offensive? Only to folks who are anxious to be offended. And if it’s gays who are offended, well, how can the mention be offensive if the activity isn’t?

          • SpiffyMclure

            I tried to respond but Twitchy nukes any comment that uses the technical phrase for buttsechs. Apparently *they* find the mention of it offensive. LOL

    • petie3

      Nice attempt at twisting reality. Baldwin’s ‘remarks’ were namecalling and offensive to anybody, and it was a convenient excuse as Baldwin’s numbers were in the crapper. Robertson’s remarks were in answer to a loaded question and A&E just shot themselves in the foot. Bet whoever made that administrative decision is gone rather quickly.

  • Jake Bradford

    MSNBC engages in “hate speech” against white males every single day

  • Right Wired ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Yep:

  • Tgar

    Can we get a side by side of Phil and Pajama Boy posted somewhere?! That should sum it all up….no words needed.

  • bobmead1960

    Martin Bashir takes weeks for action, Sharpton, Shultz, Anderson and many others are neglected at their hate speech, but Phil Robertson speaks the truths of God and he is IMMEDIATELY suspended. Hypocrisy and Stupidity abound! Get real MSNBC – “Mean Spirited Name ‘Broadcasting’ Calling!

  • /sarcnado ☠

    How in the world is it “shocking” to say that homosexual acts are sinful? That has been the majority position for, I don’t know, how many thousands of years?

  • James William Jr.

    Tolerance isn’t even a one way street as far as liberals and democrats are concerned, it’s a dead end.

  • Bklynnygirl

    MSNBC…Sharpton was quoted as saying to an audience at Kean College in 1994 that, “White folks was in caves while we was building empires…. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to.

    RACIST Al Sharpton’s Racial, Homophobic Rants.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUjlle7ZVo

  • AmericanMom

    3-5% of Americans who watch MSNBC, coincidentally the same number as a certain segment of our population.

  • Karen

    CNN and Kathy Griffin is worse than A&E and Phil Robertson.

  • Zach Brewer

    Maybe Phil should have said he wanted to defecate in their mouths a la martin Bashir? … that would have gone unnoticed, I’m certain.

  • harley_dave

    Marriage: Definition: noun
    1.) The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife byLEGAL commitments, and/OR religious ceremonies…

    I have no intention to demonize ANY portion of society. Although I find it interesting how being GLB or T has become more and more “popular” or “cool” over the past ten years, while being pushed into the “mainstream” in song and story. (Is it because they dress better than us ? ) Even certain advertising and many TV shows like to portray a homosexual lifestyle as a tolerance, in the “evolution” of our society.
    If that be the case, then in a temperate society, they SHOULD be free to practice their sexual orientation or “lifestyle” unencumbered by prejudice or persecution. If they seek to legitimize or legalize their relationship, then there is such a thing as “civil unions” which would establish a legal relationship between the two partners, of any gender, or species I imagine..

    I’ve heard people say:
    “Many states already allow legal civil unions between LGBT couples. LGBT couples don’t want civil unions. They want marriage…”

    Unfortunately, their frustration comes from the fact that all the singing and dancing and demonstrating in the world will not, CAN NOT change the definition ( See 1. above) that has been established over thousands of years.
    If, by way of rationalizing, we are going to point to sexual abuses that MAY take place in man/woman marriages, or the Christian Church or even the Boy Scouts, that’s exactly the point.. There will ALWAYS be “perversions” in EVERY part of society..that doesn’t change what it is.. and that’s why “Mores” and “Norms” exist in the first place..Lest we try to equate their demands for legitimacy with the “civil rights” movement.. Being Black, or Chinese or Indian is about what YOU ARE, being gay is about what YOU DO.. Their collective “identity” is based on a sexual “diversity” or perversion..

  • Mike

    Why in hell does the media keep pushing the gay agenda on the people of the United States? It’s not natural ! Sick and disgusting actions of some does not make it acceptable….

  • j p✓ʳᵉᶠʳᶦᵉᵈ

    OH YOU BUNCH OF INTOLERANT BREEDERS!
    That is another word they use as derogatory.
    If it weren’t for breeders they would not exist.

  • kenistaz

    Who the hell cares what msnbc say!They are nothing but a bunch of #$&^*^!!.God has a very special place in Hell picked out for them and right between the Homosexuals and the southern poverty law center.

  • jtgun

    Homophobe Al Sharpton gets a pass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le_iNq9Y-no

  • petie3

    I saw nothing which was homophobic. He said it was not his cup of tea. IS HOMOSEXUALITY MANDATORY NOW????