Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

by **eroeoplier** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:22 pm

I'm a little bit perplexed by now. Israel is currently f*cking over Lebanon, albeit mildly - only a thousand or so dead so far. And they are using DU munitions, white phosphorous, and God knows what else. (Just try looking at the corpses to see if they are definitely using white phosphorous - <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEY20060801&articleId=2877">www.globalresearch.ca/ind...cleId=2877</a> - see how that makes you feel). The question that occurs to me is, who the f*ck do these Israelis think they are that they can do that to people? The next question is, why on earth are any of you surprised that Mel Gibson was caught, half pissed, being "anti-Semitic"? Could a complete and utter Saint not be forgiven for being "anti-Semitic" at this point in time? I mean, it's time to stop thinking in tabloid thought. It's not as if Israel hasn't done this exact same thing before (minus the DU and white phosphorous). It's not as if the death toll isn't grossly biased towards non-Israeli deaths, throughout the history of the middle-east conflict. Or may I not be so crude as to compare death tolls? Would anyone condemn an Afghan or Iraqi for bearing a life-long grudge against America, given what America has done to them of late? A few thousand Americans dead, versus tens of thousands of Afghanis, a million+ Iraqis. All because of what? Because Anglo-American interests wanted to be camped upon the oil. They decided to hitch their wagon to the Zionist cause way back. All because these Anglo-American(-Jewish?) interests decided to blow up some big buildings to make it look like the people who they wanted to economically displace were mad frothing-at-the-mouth killers. But they aren't. Can you imagine how bad terrorism would be if the Mulsim world actually *did* want to destroy our comfort?. People have been trying to relieve the Mulsims of their resources, or by some other means eliminate them, for the last hundred years. And killing them slowly or quick has been one of these means. When you see what Zionists themselves have admitted to doing in the name of the cause, let alone what can otherwise be deduced by witnessing the acts of the founders of Israel, can you not understand why the indigenous people of the region would be mightily miffed - in a similar fashion to the modern Afghanistan/Iraq situation? Our fun is being spoilt here. Think about the beautiful world we could be living in. Think about what would have to be done in order to stop destroying this beautiful world - you can rest assured, the PTB aren't. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=eroeoplier@rigorousintuition>eroeoplier</A> at: 8/2/06 12:29 pm

by **robertdreed** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:27 pm

I read Larry Freeh's autobiography, and he said that he is not a member of Opus Dei. His brother is a member, and somehow that information got fed into the Rumor Mill and got confused, and now the notion that Larry Freeh is a member of Opus Dei is widely accepted popular currency. I think the source of the confusion may have been one of the books on the Robert Hansen spy case. And I thought that Sam Brownback was an evangelical Christian- although he is undoubtedly on the forefront of building political power alliances with other religious groups who share his support for an offical assumption of some sort of reactionary theocracy in this country. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/2/06 12:29 pm

by **rothbardian** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:46 pm

Hillshoist-- I'm afraid you've retreated too far into some semi-abstract expressions (for lack of a better term) for me to understand much of what you're saying. I think I'm deriving that you don't hold yourself to very high standards, and that none of us should expect to be able to do so(?). Anyway, you sound like you have plenty of goodwill, actually. You've had such a cheerful way of continually referring to me as a Nazi fascist bigot...that it almost feels like a pat on back (plus, you tend to throw in little apologies afterwards). From what I've seen of a few of your posts, it sounds like you've been over a few bumpy roads in the past. Anyway, I don't come to these boards to indulge in amateur psychobabble (such as I've slipped into now). I'll just leave it at this-- I don't believe "all people are racist". I think you may have fallen victim to typical liberal definitions of "racism". In other words, when I look around me I see that some cultures (NOT races or ethnic groups) are healthier than others, and some cultures (at the present time at least) are more problematic than others. I think you probably recognize that also...but you've been convinced by 'political correctness' liberalism to view that sorting process in your own thinking...as racism or discrimination or prejudice etc. In the area where I live, there are many thousands of Vietnamese Americans. It is fair to say that their culture (and again, it has nothing to do with their ethnicity) is very strong, very impressive. They were dumped on our shores back in 1975, and through a Herculean work ethic and raw courage and determination, these people have carved a life for themselves under extreme difficulty. I have many Vietnamese friends, and these people are wonderful. They have great family values-- the parents don't leave, they don't divorce, the children grow up in an emotionally secure environment. I love the current state of their culture, and I could go on and on. But the PC police don't like what I'm doing here...because they can see where this is going. If I am saying NICE things about one culture, am I going to say or think critical things about another culture? Such is the destructive anti-intellectualism of political correctness-- we're not allowed to engage in effective analysis of the positives AND the negatives of various cultures....because that is 'politically incorrect' and that just won't do. It is considered by them to be...prejudice, discrimination, racism etc. And setting aside your "mangy dog rolling in it's own waste" comments...the Midwestern culture IS extremely problematic at the present time. But contrary to a lot of these seething remarks around here, these Bible-belt people are very good, kind, friendly and spectacularly generous and charitable. They'll give you the shirt off their back. But they've been scammed. They've been lied to. They believe Bush is a devout Christian and that these wars are saving the world. They are walled in by lies...and the computer age hasn't quite broken out into full bloom, so they may not know what you know. (For that matter, I personally see that lefties in America have been equally victimized and scammed into disastrously erroneous views.) Yathrib-- Don't know what you're referring to either. I recall trying to compliment you on your level of intelligence. I have never "construed" any of your specific statements, so....? I do recall you making a gratuitously sneering comment about Michael Smith, while I was in the middle of a discussion on economics. It's water off a duck's back, for me. You also (similarly to Hillshoist) appear to be badly mis-categorizing me. I have absolutely nothing in common with O'Reilly, Dobson or James Kennedy (or Copeland). These people are 100% incorrect on just about 100% of the issues, as far as I'm concerned. I'm a 'freedom' guy. I want freedom from the coerciveness of leftist philosophy and the coerciveness of rightie philosophy. You'll be aghast to know, I make no distinction between left and right...in practical terms. My son will end up just as dead in some God-forsaken PTB-contrived war, whether Howard Dean gets into power...or some other neocon vampire succeeds Bush. Right or left....makes no difference. It hasn't for the last 150 years. You'll recall that President Wilson (who was apparently the perfect liberal) came to power with the best of intentions and a load of promises to the American people about avoiding war. He promptly turned around (under coercion and manipulation from the PTB) and became an accessory to the murder of 500,000 American boys. How long after Howard Dean (or whoever) gets into the Oval Office, will he be in the pocket of the PTB? A week? Two days? Fifteen minutes? The key is to get rid of the Oval Office et al. Massive, dramatic reduction and elimination of most of what passes for "government". We need to repeat a version of what the Founding Fathers did-- huddle up and figure out how to pull the power plug on the PTB (in their case...the King of England).

by **HMKGrey** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:58 pm

I'm wearing a false moustache, a shell-suit and I've got a thick bubble perm wig on. I'm speaking in a Liverpudlian accent and I'm saying: "Calm down, calm down... Eh? Calm down." I think roth is telling us he's an anarchist. Hooray. I really like anarchists. Even Howard Zinn likes anarchists. And if ever there was a case for the PTB having played switcheroo and bury the treasure with a word and an idea that could save us all, surely anarchy fits the bill. 99.9% of the population thinks anarchy is about molotov cocktails. The word has been co-opted and coerced to the point of being a buzz word for rioting and disorder, yet that's actually nothing at all to do with it. Irony for roth: I like Joe H's posts because he sounds like a bloody anarchist and I'm pretty sure he lives like one. ie. With little to no institutional interference and almost entirely under his own terms. I think a lot of people on this board are anarchists without realizing or articulating it. And that's a big part of why we generally feel such contempt for the left gate-keepers. We can clearly see that they are just the other side of the same coin. Solution: Throw the fucking coin out altogether. Roth's comments about Howard Dean are spot on. And it circles back to Jeff's mention of the Bill Hick's moment a few weeks back. The whole fucking system is rotten. We're wasting our time trying to change it. We need to destroy it.

by **johnny nemo** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:18 pm

In my heart of hearts, I'm an anarchist. But, the problem with anarchists is bi-polar thinking like this <blockquote>Quote:<hr>99.9% of the population thinks anarchy is about molotov cocktails. The word has been co-opted and coerced to the point of being a buzz word for rioting and disorder, yet that's actually nothing at all to do with it.<hr></blockquote> Sounds reasonable. But, then you follow up with this. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The whole fucking system is rotten. We're wasting our time trying to change it. We need to destroy it.<hr></blockquote> And then wonder why people think anarchists are violent ?!? We need more John Ball and Emma Goldman style anarchists, not more Dora Kaplan, Leon Czolgosz, and Alexander Berkman nutbars with guns. Emma Goldman denounced violence and said it was a tool of the "statists". We should as well, barring self-defense, IMHO.

by **HMKGrey** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And then wonder why people think anarchists are violent ?!?<hr></blockquote> And what makes you think I think the system needs to be destroyed through violent upheaval? We can destroy the system in all sorts of ways. Use your imagination and swap out 'destroy' for 'bring down' - maybe you'll be more comfortable with that. Violence is the final, final resort if it's the only thing we can do. I'm a buddhist and see no value whatsoever in violence. But, having said that, I would fight them if it was all that was left to me. I've debated this endlessly with other zen students and some agree and some don't. It comes down to a personal interpretation. But broadly speaking, please don't assume that when an anarchist says "Let's destroy government!" they're secretly mixing the molotovs. It's just language.

by **greencrow0** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:27 pm

If Mel had ranted against muslims.... Would he be in deep doo doo now? Or, not. GC

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:08 pm

Rain, .12, Mel Gibson, hmmm I dunno 8 to 10 over 2 or 3 hours? If that, maybe less, at least 5... It is actually hard to pick but... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>would you or anyone you know be ranting sozzled on that.<hr></blockquote> Well I rant anyway, but I doubt myself or anyone I know would come out with stuff they hadn't already made obvious. I don't live in the city anymore tho. People in the bush are a lot more open. They are less inclined to shut up about their opinion cos they are worried about what someone might think. So it doesn't take a lot to get people to say what they really think. At least around here. But really most places. For example, mum was from Beaconsfield, that mining town in Tassie. I spent alot of time there as a kid. They were pretty much the same, and still are. The opus dei thing... I dunno if I missed that cos its so obvious or because I didn't think about it. I came from a Catholic background, and to be honest never came across any anti semetism that I can remember. But a lot of other bigotry. Mum works in the CEO in Melbourne, she has a pretty responsible position re designing curriculums and stuff. She's had 30 years science teaching experience in Catholic schools. She even taught sex education. To high school boys. SAtarted a program called "Family Life" that was actually pretty open in its thinking. She said things like "Don't have sex before you are married cos that often cheapens sex, but if you are gonna, be aware of the consequences. Use condoms, practice other birth control, it wasd the early 80s, she used to say "use condoms, thats how you stop the transmission of AIDS". She used to get in a lot of shit with Pell and his nasty little spies... But she did a great job in giving kids the information they needed to make their own informed choices, gave her moral position and why and let them make the decisions and wear the consequences. She was a great teacher tho. She should be teaching teachers. Thats more my experience with Opus Dei. Through her. This is a quote or two from Scalia: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Moral opposition to nudity supplies a rational basis for its prohibition.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The purpose of Indiana's law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into Hoosier Dome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd.<hr></blockquote> That last one was from a decision referring to a lap dancing club. One with full nudity. Personally I have never been to a lap dancing club, tho I worked in pubs in melbourne in the 80s, with the sad strippers and the drunken yobs. Not my idea of a turn on to be honest. Tho I like watching sexy chicks dancing, but I prefer the dancing to be "real" dancing. And the chick to be one particular chick. But thats not the point, the point is that lap dancing clubs are sad places, well i assume they are, cos if they are anything like the old days in melbourne, well its not real great. A nightclub with no lapdancers just hundreds of young horny people, half of them eckying, has 20 times the sexual charged atmosphere that those sad stripshows invoked. But Scalia see's 60, 000 people waving and flashing their naughty bits <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> at each other in a sporting stadium the size of Docklands or whatever its called now. WTF Thats how I see opus Dei. Very repressed. Hmm I guess that makes Gibsons drunken outburst actually make more sense. Even tho its the opposite behaviour that I expect from me or the people i know.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:01 pm

Roth, I can't take you too seriously, If you can't follow what I said its simply this. 1 The mangy dog comment was originally referring to western consumer culture, but I applied the nastiest insulting bit to those midwestern values cos I suspect you hold them, and am just trying to see your response to some one "Not saying what they really mean." 2 In the process, I realised that I did, on some level I mean those comments. I also suspect that you have, in a moment of weakness insulted someone in a base way as an outlet for your anger, and sincerely regretted it afterward. I have and I agree with your point about forgiveness. And the fact that people are hypocritical about alot of things. Even "liberals". As much as I would like to think I have no racist tendencies, I do. Everyone has bigotries, personal dislikes etc etc that are not based in reality. I am not talking about disliking rapists and the like either. I am bigoted against sexual violence but I don't consider sort of bigotry invalid. I am talking about the lazy kind. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think I'm deriving that you don't hold yourself to very high standards, and that none of us should expect to be able to do so(?). <hr></blockquote> Thats the complete opposite. I hold very high standards for myself. I am also trying to be honest even hypercritical about myself because whats the point of holding yourself to high standards if you are deluded enough to believe you are succeeding. You won't be putting the same pressure on yourself to maintain those standards. But if I fuck up I don't beat myself up about it. I try to understand how not to fuck up again. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anyway, you sound like you have plenty of goodwill, actually. You've had such a cheerful way of continually referring to me as a Nazi fascist bigot...that it almost feels like a pat on back (plus, you tend to throw in little apologies afterwards).<hr></blockquote> I try to. Not a Nazi, I can't imagine you, Roth, kicking in someones door at 4 am and dragging them off into the night. But I think you are a fascist. In the Mussolini "corporatism is fascism" sense. Not in the Owsley/Hitler/Aphartheid sense of fascism. Or the way "the Young Ones" would say "Fascist". And your anti liberal bigotry is obvious to me and I have seen it affecting your perceptions before, causing you to make frankly erroneous assessments of people. But You don't seem like a prick, just someone whose worldview I don't quite follow. so I try to laugh at you, (and me for my own arrogance), but come on - this anti liberal bias you have is obvious. (I have an anti Liberal bias that I don't expect you to understand. If you knew who John Howard was you might.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think you probably recognize that also...but you've been convinced by 'political correctness' liberalism to view that sorting process in your own thinking...as racism or discrimination or prejudice etc.<hr></blockquote> No Roth, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>the Midwestern culture IS extremely problematic at the present time. But contrary to a lot of these seething remarks around here, these Bible-belt people are very good, kind, friendly and spectacularly generous and charitable.<hr></blockquote> This is probaly true. But those Tipper Gore kenneth Copeland PMRC nutcases have attacked most of what I have enjoyed for most of my life. Hence my bigotry. Thats what I am saying about everyone being racist, well bigoted. People tend to think that they are never gonna make the mistakes they accuse others of making. My attitude to those bible belt people is similar to their attitude that led to the destruction of "The Dead Kennedys" one of the most important (wank on Joe) and awesome bands in human history, and the War on Drugs, terra, Terror, Poor People and Freedom. Look at Scalia's quotes above (to me Opus dei and the Fundies are the same crap in a different bucket). <blockquote>Quote:<hr>These people are 100% incorrect on just about 100% of the issues, as far as I'm concerned. I'm a 'freedom' guy. I want freedom from the coerciveness of leftist philosophy and the coerciveness of rightie philosophy.<hr></blockquote> See this is exactly the sort of blindness I am talking about. You are doing it Roth. You seem like a decent person, but you seem so full of it at the same time, and I try not to come and be blunt like that, cos its probably not the sort of bluntness you are used to. I know we are all full of it, but thats what drives debate.

by **rain** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:16 pm

Yes Robert, I thought this little snippet from Madsen was a bit dodgy, so for the purists, note ' caveat ....blah, blah, blah, etc' there's also the matter of 'Abramoff !?. how long ago are we talking about here'. but then, does it matter in this context. not to mention my own built in blind-spots with word association, like if someone says 'fibbers', I'm going to say 'LDS'. ah well, we all have our crosses to bear. (that's a joke btw). (and, for the sake of brevity 'fibbers' is just my anagram for fbi). anyway, I'll admit to not being entirely clear on all the machinations, but I'm sticking with street theatre, and seemingly, rather successful too. I'm also open to the probability that Mel's in rehab, moreso given that his agent said, to paraphrase, 'the man's just trying to stay alive' (sorry can't find the link), not for his 'drinking problem', although it does play nicely into acts of contrition, etc, but for security, aka, so that some 'lone nut' doesn't pop him. Jerusalem or bust?

by **4911** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:22 pm

"People do not always mean what they say" wait - do you really mean that?

by **Jezebelladonna** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:11 am

Maybe it's time we defined some terms. From merriam-websters: Main Entry: big·ot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice 1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims 2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics racism 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination A bigot has prejudices which may or may not include racism. Is Joe prejudiced against midwestern bible thumpers because of their intolerance and deep need to control others' behavior? Dunno bout that. He paints them with a same brush, but that's called generalizing, which is the same thing Roth does with liberals. Maybe there is some prejudice there, but neither bible thumpers nor liberals are contemplated under the definition of racism. I would agree that we all have prejudices and we all generalize...saves a heap of time. But if we adhere to our prejudices and generalities regardless of any contrary evidence, we may be bigots. Generalizing is more than just a logical fallacy: it reinforces prejudices. Reminds me of RA Wilson's word "sumbunall" meaning "some but not all", which he recommended using in place of all. (Would Hitler have been able to rally the troops with "Some but not all Jews....!") generalize: 1 : to give a general form to 2 a : to derive or induce (a general conception or principle) from particulars b : to draw a general conclusion from 3 : to give general applicability to <generalize a law>; also : to make indefinite intransitive verb

by **rothbardian** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:05 am

Hillshoist-- Here's why I say I can barely make out what you're saying most of the time: I made a comment that "I'm a 'freedom' guy. I want freedom..." To which you responded that I am "blind" and "full of it". Somebody who simply expresses a desire for freedom is "blind" and "full of it"? Makes no sense whatsoever, to me. Fascism is a system of government. It's one that requires centralized dictatorial authority. I am against dictatorial centralized government. I'm not a fascist. I'm a libertarian. Apparently you think a fascist is...anybody you disagree with, maybe? I have no idea, but I am in complete opposition to fascism. And it isn't bigotry to be opposed to political correctness. It isn't bigotry to...disagree with a concept, for goodness sake. Again, pure nonsense. I have been saying that I have an intense dislike for a lynch mob mentality that chops off a man's entire life (Mel Gibson) for one solitary indiscretion. So, it's "bigotry" for me to have a dislike of bullying? Nonsense. I am saying that the culture of liberalism is currently best described as 'problematic' and dysfunctional. I say the same about the very culture I grew up in-- Midwestern Bible-belt culture. Though you are in denial about it, it would appear you have been duped into believing that simply criticizing a culture that way...is bigoted. It is not.

by **Trifecta** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:24 am

Havanagilla wrote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What is the official religious stance, of fundie american evangelical Christianity about Islam, or is it just unexplored ?<hr></blockquote> Well, from my limited understanding, its more a case of how the 40 million evangelical christians view their support of the Jewish lobby, with the basic understanding that any anti semite/new anti-semitism is to spend eternity in hell without god. Think that may answer your question? See it paints a even bigger picture of the power of the Jewish lobby...no wonder Gibson is recounting for his sins, don't think he is worried about being in hell somehow, looks as if he has been in his own living hell here on Earth...umm, that sounds familiar.

by **rothbardian** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:41 am

HMKGrey (and Johnny Nemo)-- I appreciate the interesting comments. If your theory is true, I certainly wish people would get in touch with their inner Libertarian. I normally do not use the term "anarchy" as it's meaning (as you already explained) has been completely hijacked. I prefer to talk about "setting up our community in terms of freedom and voluntary association". Or "privatized government". There again, freedom remains intact. For example, the 'public education' section of our current government: If we could get rid of it, then I could go get a tutor of my own choosing (along with a few other parents) and get away from the horribly inept 'public' schools, which are currently drenched in a confusing mishmash of neocon AND leftist propaganda. If the tutor doesn't like me or my child, or we don't like the tutor...we can part ways. Freedom, baby. Currently, public schools are loaded to the gills with coercion and authoritarianism. They're nothing but 'sheep factories' (starting with the socialist-originated and very insidious "Pledge of Allegiance"). We could go right down the line and replace anything and everything 'government' does...absolutely effortlessly. Not to mention, about two thirds of what government does is totally fraudulent and needless 'make work' baloney, concocted by these government nitwits. (Global militarization and the building of a domestic police state, just for openers.) This idea that we cannot organize ourselves as a community unless certain ones of us put on hats that say "Bureaucrat"....is one of the most amazing absurdities in the history of civilization. Ironically, the Founding Fathers (notwithstanding some of the creepy Freemasons I believe had slithered in among them) were the most extreme anarchists you could possibly imagine. They demanded and fought for...a complete and total removal of ALL existing government. They demanded the complete and total removal of the existing British rule. They then went about structuring the American community from scratch. By stark contrast (and very disappointingly, for me) most of the 9/11 researchers and conspiracy researchers are only pushing for a 'makeover' of this existing government. "Let's keep this monstrous tyranny machine which the PTB have built up for themselves over the years..and then we'll place our own (kinder and gentler) despots in these governing positions...and then hope they don't succumb to a power corruption process...even though every single person who has gotten into these positions has succumbed to it." It is an absolutely amazing and colossal mistake. Here is what the Declaration of Independence says-- "...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [the Government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." It is the right of the people to abolish government. It is our right to reorganize. There is nothing 'sacrosanct' about our current system. It's right there in the Declaration.

Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Re: the work

For the record...

From the President of the O'Reilly Fan Club

Thread of the Year

Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Mel Gibson

Re: The 'Mangy Dog' School of Anti-Bigotry?

Re: From the President of the O'Reilly Fan Club

Re:for the record

Re: Re:for the record

Re: From the President of the O'Reilly Fan Club

You've lost me

its a good question

The Current System: A Tyranny Machine.

Who is online