Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

[Dreams End]

replacing "Jews" with Zionists not only doesn't excuse it...it proves my point that often the latter is code for the former. If all you want is for someone not to say the word "Jew" but still mean it...you are part of the problem.<br><br>("You" here, meaning anyone who thinks along these lines.)<br><br>You see now why some of us make this claim that, though Zionist has a specific political and cultural meaning, it's often used as a code word. Just like "welfare cheats" is used here in the US to mean black people. They don't SAY it...and we know there really ARE welfare cheats...but enough people get the code that it does its job.<br><br>So, no, if Mel got out and blamed all the world's wars (ALL?) on fucking Zionists and then asked the cop if he or she were a Zionist, I wouldn't feel any better about his rant at all. Perhaps you are suggesting his film really potrayed how the Zionists killed Christ? <p></p><i></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

*dupe from 'images' thread, but worth repeating*<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.sickle666.com/images/israelbombs.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p>____________________<br>Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.</p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

DreamsEnd--<br><br>I had put a little 'explanatory' blurb in there about how Eastern patriarchal cultures (at least at the time) would substitute the wife's name for the husband's, in the genealogy. Somehow I must've deleted that. <br><br>Yeah, that's part of the explanation (for me at least). If you look at the historical cultural context, it would be considered 'incorrect form' to list a long series of patriarchs, capped off by the mention of Mary. These cultures believed in the 'headship' of the husband. <br><br>To <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>re</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->-answer your question about skipped generations--- the one genealogy was only hitting the 'highlights'. You can see how, from "David" on back to earlier generations, the one genealogy was arbitrarily leaving out some generations that obviously existed. Does that mean that the one genealogy was 'fabricated'? No, it means the one author was simply hitting the 'highlights'.<br><br>I have to say-- one of the mistakes many Bible critics make is assuming that the writing of the Bible is (or should be) set up to defend against a huge barrage of aggressive cross-examination questioning. From that (incorrect) perspective it would presumably be argued, the gospel writers should have well known that if they are not exactly matching up their genealogies...they can expect to have their credibility blown out of the water.<br><br>But that's not how these documents are structured. These writers were not engaged in a panicked scramble for credibility with future Bible-debunkers. They were certainly trying to establish some credibility, but they wouldn't be able to foresee, for example, a 21st century reader's lack of knowledge concerning cultural fine points (such as patriarch-oriented genealogies). <br><br>My experience is that the Scriptures will, many times, leave <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>the reader</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> scrambling to sort out all the obscure and delicate cultural/historical/logical fine points...in order to have an accurate understanding of these ancient writings. These early Christians viewed themselves as earnest 'truth-seekers', and so their writings are geared towards <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>truth-seekers</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->...not naysayers or debunkers (sincere though these debunkers may be).<br><br>You're broaching a large subject, in bringing up the subject of "the blood" of Jesus being upon people's heads etc. Suffice to say (in regards to these differing genealogies) there are copies of these gospels going way back. <br><br>If there was this huge 'contradiction' to be observed in these two gospels in, say, 200A.D....where IS that controversy to be seen? Are we to believe that these great numbers of adherents to the Christian faith were all so dense, they detected no 'contradiction'? <br><br>Or that the leaders wouldn't have scrambled to 'adjust' these gospel versions? It doesn't add up. <br><br>It gets a little tiresome when some Bible critics are at first arbitrarily declaring that the Christian community was scrambling to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>artificially harmonize</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> the Bible writings...but then elsewhere they have been supposedly scrambling to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>alter</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> the writings (contradictions or no). They should make up their mind.<br><br>And again, Biblical historians (who are certainly smarter than I) have previously explained about the fine points of genealogies in Eastern culture...explanations that seem credible, given what I know about Eastern culture (ancient or otherwise).<br><br>And just a note-- I would say it is an extremely subjective judgment call to say that someone does or does not have <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>an "a priori" need</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to believe something. Just my opinion.<br>-------<br>havanagilla--<br><br>I certainly sympathize with you being 'creeped out' by overly friendly fundamentalist Christians. <br>--------<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Back to the Gibson thing</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->-- it just seems to be the typical liberal M.O. in action: If you can somehow pin a large part of 'Christian' credibility to Mel Gibson, and then <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>sink him</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->...mission accomplished. It's the age-old "kill the messenger". That's why there is all this excitement about a DUI...(in my opinion). <br><br>And convicting someone based on drunken ramblings? Good luck with that. I will say this-- Few souls on this earth have a more fervent religious belief in the concept of Thought Police heart/mind-reading powers...than many mainstream liberals I've encountered. If a lib gets it in his head that somebody is a racist or anti-semite or this or that...it's game over. <br><br>Maybe Gibson is an anti-semite...and maybe he was drunk and trying to stupidly spout something insulting. To be on the safe side, let's have him drawn and quartered in the public square. <p></p><i></i>

[yathrib]

My vote is "is." On the radio today someone said in connection with this that "where the sober man is silent, the drunk man speaks. SO I assume these are his actual opinions expressed when his inhibitions are lowered. But beyond that, his opinions on Jews or anything else concern me for maybe 5 seconds. I am a little disappointed, because in the interviews I've seen or read he seems like a likable, stand-up guy. <br><br>Beyond that, his opinions are his opinions. They are no more relevant than the opinions of any other drunk a**hole. <p></p><i></i>

[dranek7]

<!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/07/gibson_booking_5_375_073106.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>Doesn't look completely drunk to me. was this photo taken long after the incident? Was he possibly not drunk, but on drugs? <p></p><i></i>

[Joe Hillshoist]

Get real - he looks shitfaced.<br><br>When was the last time you got really drunk?<br><br>Get someone to take a photo, not when you are sitting down all unable to move, but before you get to the point where you can't stand up.<br><br>His eyes are wide, but not truly dialled - that could just be from the adrenaline of getting busted.<br><br>Mel hasn't done anything worth watching since 1985. <p></p><i></i>

[dranek7]

I was just going by comparison with mug shots of other celebs. Compared to most drunk or drugged mugshots, his really doen't look that bad.<br><br>From <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html">TSG</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Nick Nolte<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/mugshots/noltemug.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>2 actresses from ABC's "Lost"<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/mugshots/lostgirlsmug1.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>Glen Campbell at time of arrest(top) and whilst reporting to serve a sentence(bottom)<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/mugshots/campbellnewmug1.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Back to the Gibson thing-- it just seems to be the typical liberal M.O. in action: If you can somehow pin a large part of 'Christian' credibility to Mel Gibson, and then sink him...mission accomplished. It's the age-old "kill the messenger". That's why there is all this excitement about a DUI...(in my opinion). <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>"Typical liberal M.O."? I don't think so. What you're suggesting doesn't make sense.<br><br>There was a huge debate about Gibson's alleged anti-Semitism when "The Passion of the Christ" came out. His father claims the Holocaust is a hoax and believes the Catholic church was taken over by Jews and Masons. Gibson left the so-called "blood curse" against the Jews in the film, though he did not use subtitles -- he left it in "His blood be upon us" spoken in Aramaic without subtitles. Crafty bastard, eh?<br><br>Yet he denied, again and again, that he is an anti-Semite.<br><br>So it's not surprising that people are all over this. Hypocrisy is always hot news. There's nothing anti-Christian about the outcry over his drunken revelations.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Maybe Gibson is an anti-semite...and maybe he was drunk and trying to stupidly spout something insulting. To be on the safe side, let's have him drawn and quartered in the public square.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Drawn and quartered? Only in the mind of someone who can't -- or refused to -- see the obvious. If he's drawn and quartered, he did it all to himself.<br><br>And the liberal bashing is just odd. Can't understand where, exactly, you're coming from with that stuff.<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=professorpan>professorpan</A> at: 7/31/06 11:33 pm<br></i>

[Joe Hillshoist]

They are great photo's. Nick Nolte looks like he's moved to nimboin and become a junkie.<br><br>One think about Mel's mugshot, he could have been shooting the video for that song, you know the one:<br><br>"Its a reefer do you want some policeman, its a reefer would you like a blast.<br>Its a reefer do you want some policeman.<br>Or would you prefer me to shove it up your arse." <p></p><i></i>

[xsic bastardx]

<br> I wish I could respond to this discussion. However since I know for a FACT that I will get kicked off if I post one, and since I really care about being here and love RI so much I will not.<br><br> I will say this once and only once. <br><br><br> I am NOT an anti-semite. <br><br> <br><br> I DO question the basis of which WWII was started.<br><br> I DO question many of the claims, actions and deeds of the nations that were involved including my own, this one. <br><br> That includes the Holocaust.<br><br> My questions come from a long list of inconsisitencies that are longer than what happend 9/11. <br><br> I find it funny that some would question things like 9/11 and the American Govt. but yet Clam up when it comes time for Isreal to be questioned also.<br><br> I am simply saying that a rogue faction of deranged people have hijacked a Culture and Society much like the New-Cons have done so to America. <br><br> The simple fact is for them it started in the Holocaust and WWII.<br><br> For us it started on 9/11.<br><br> <br> Mel Gibson was raised by a man who "Denies" the Holocaust even happend. His faith almost preaches the hatred of them. Yes, "Passion of the Christ" was overly convicting of the Jews, but, there is Christ's blood on thier hands. <br> I can't fault Mel for believing in his faith or his convictions. Or for having ANY opinions. I can fault him for having no couth and being drunk and opening his mouth. There is a time and place for all discussions and that was not the correct time or place or circumstance.<br> Honestly, I don't believe Mel hates Jews.<br> We all find scapegoats to to turn our self-hatred outward. We just have to be strong enough to stand up and admit when were wrong.<br> <br> <br> You guys can post whatever you want now and say whatever you want, I will not respond.<br><br> In fact, I look forward to seeing how many of you call me or insinuate that I am an anti-semite now. Which in fact, is far from the truth. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=xsicbastardx>xsic bastardx</A> at: 8/1/06 2:48 am<br></i>

[rothbardian]

Pan--<br><br>I would say you've made my point precisely-- Was it a "drunken <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>revelation</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->" as you claim? Or simply drunken meaningless ranting? Like I said- when some liberals get it in their heads that someone is racist or anti-semitic...that apparently is the 'final' word on the subject. <br><br>Meanwhile the reality is that many people have, in a moment of uncontrolled anger, spouted off a racial epithet, only in an attempt to reach for the most stinging insult of the moment...and not because they are truly racist. They may have had a bad moment, which they later sincerely regret.<br><br>By the way, that statement "may his blood be upon us" is a quote directly from the gospel accounts (Matthew 27). I see nowhere in the Bible anything that indicates the Jewish people were to be punished for Christ's death. In fact, that concept is entirely contradictory to the New Testament message (IMO) so...there isn't anything necessarily "crafty" about including that statement in Gibson's movie script.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[havanagilla]

- just curious how<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong> I have the blood of jesus</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> on my hands ? <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> there is Christ's blood on thier hands<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>and does that mean that you have the blood of the indians and the black slaves on your hands ? or was that actually a good slaughter of the heathens ? <br> <br> <p></p><i></i>

[dranek7]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> They are great photo's. Nick Nolte looks like he's moved to nimboin and become a junkie.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That's what I was pointing out Joe. When sober people get a mugshot, they appear rather normal. But when you're driving 87 in a 45 and ranting and raving, at least a hair would be out of place. When high profile persons loose their inhibitions, they tend to become innatentive to their own looks. I would not be surprised if they took the mug yesterday. <p></p><i></i>

[Joe Hillshoist]

Its amazing what wonders make up can do Dranek.<br><br>seriously he may be drunk and speeding (as in meth), but on the way down a bit.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Meanwhile the reality is that many people have, in a moment of uncontrolled anger, spouted off a racial epithet, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>only in an attempt to reach for the most stinging insult of the moment...and not because they are truly racist</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. They may have had a bad moment, which they later sincerely regret.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Everyone is racist. And that worse insult you are talking about is probably just an example of that person's racism that they haven't dealt with yet.<br><br>It is about how you control it/your thinking. That thought reflects the worse inside you, not the person who you are directing it at.<br><br>But speaking personally, people that do the sort of thing to me end up in a fight. That hasn't happened for a long time. <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

In my professional opinion based on putting some years in as a night shift cab driver, Gibson looks drunk. <br><br>Mind you, about 20-30 per cent of weekend drunkards of his age cohort are known to add a little salt to their whiskey from time to time, if you know what I mean. In California, anyway.<br><br>You know, "polydrug abuse." F&L Vegas Syndrome. Not so much weed or acid, but stimulant powders like meth and coke, to make a "white night" of it, or three...or four. I think Keith Richard once mentioned that his record was 9 days. My opinion is that your body is yours, if you want to enter the Chet Baker lookalike contest- like Nolte, evidently- be my guest. <br><br>But stay off off the road, out of peoples hair, and lay off the ripping and running. <br><br>Unfortunately, that seems to be too much to ask for a sizeable number of boneheads out there. <br><br>And really, this is not the fault of the Jews. I am grateful to the police for dealing with people who are seemingly incapable of acting as responsible citizens. <br><br>By the way- did anyone catch that ruler-wielding Catholic reactionary being interviewed by Colbert, a couple of nights before the Gibson brouhaha? At one point, I swear I heard him claim that Passion Of The Christ was the ONLY wholesome, pro-social film put out by "Hollywood" in the last 10 years. Controlled by secular liberals, disproportionately of the Jewish persuasion, you know...<br><br>To me, the pompous self-righteousness of that comment was at least as politically pernicious as anything that Gibson was quoted as saying to the SoCal police in the course of his arrest. And unlike Gibson, who can offer the plausible defense that he got a little carried away with his fantasizing due to his transient envelopment in an quasi-etherous haze of ethyl alcohol- the Catholic Integralist was, to all outward appearances, not drunk on anything. Unless one counts sado-moralism, that is. <br> <p></p><i></i>