Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

by **ParisianAttackMonkey** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:14 am

Well anyways, here's a bit from Mel Gibson's July '95 Playboy interview, I only read it for the articles by the way. PB: What's the best script you've read? Gibson: Schindler's List. Which I read in one sitting. I fully expected not to like it. It surprised me. Holocaust stories have been done to death. But I was totally sucked into it and really moved by it. PB: Were you considered for Schindler? Gibson: I was one of those nameless people who did an audition that was supposed to be confidential. PB: And you wanted the part? Gibson: Yeah, sure. PB: What did you think of Liam Neeson in the role? Gibson: Oh, he was fine, great. He was that big teddy bear guy. Liam brought his own thing to that, which was wonderful. I would have made him a lot slicker. PB: How do you feel about Bill Clinton? Gibson: He's a low level opportunist. Somebody's telling him what to do. PB: Who? Gibson: The guy who's in charge isn't going to be the front man, ever. If I were going to be calling the shots I wouldn't ever make an appearance. Would you? You'd end up losing your head. It happens all the time. All those Monarchs. If he's the leader he's getting shafted. What's keeping him in there? Why would you stay for that kind of abuse? Except that he has to stay for some reason. He was meant to be president 30 years ago, if you ask me. PB: He was 18 then. Gibson: Somebody knew then that he would be president now. PB: You really believe that? Gibson: I really believe that. He was a Rhodes scholar right? Just like Bob Hawke. Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who want to strive for a new world order. Have you heard that before? George Bush? CIA? Really it's Marxism, but it just doesn't want to call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don't admit to it. Do it by stealth. There's a whole trend of Rhodes scholars who will be politicians around the world. PB: This certainly sounds like a paranoid sense of world history. You must be quite an assasination buff? Gibson: Oh, fuck. A lot of these guys pulled a boner. There's something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried. I can't remember what it was, my dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I'll end up dead talking about this shit. PB: No one can accuse you of keeping your big mouth shut. Gibson: I used to get into trouble because I had a really big trap. I'd say things to people and they'd take offense because I'm not the soul of tact. It still plagues me.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:32 am

Wow what an awesome interview. Me thinks about much in next time. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>All those Monarchs. If he's the leader he's getting shafted. What's keeping him in there? Why would you stay for that kind of abuse? Except that he has to stay for some reason. He was meant to be president 30 years ago, if you ask me.<hr></blockquote> You know something. Back when Clinton was in his first term, a friend of Hilary's was interviewed on some TV show. She remembers when H first met Bill. She was raving about him and actually said "You watch he'll be president some day" or words to that effect to this chick that was interviewed. Back in the 60s about 28 years before Mels interview. At the time I thought it was just a faith thing, or you know that Hilary recognised how "unreal" he was, and wanted in on him. That was certainly the context that it was portrayed as. You know, watch this guy he'll be pres/win the olympics/get a nobel prize sort of thing. These days I have a different view of that interview. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I fully expected not to like it. It surprised me. Holocaust stories have been done to death. But I was totally sucked into it and really moved by it.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This certainly sounds like a paranoid sense of world history. You must be quite an assasination buff? Gibson: Oh, fuck. A lot of these guys pulled a boner. There's something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried. I can't remember what it was, my dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I'll end up dead talking about this shit.<hr></blockquote> Well you didn't, is this just viral marketing for Conspiracy theory (edited for: ie the movie) or does he believe it and if so why join Opus Dei. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>George Bush? CIA? Really it's Marxism, but it just doesn't want to call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don't admit to it. Do it by stealth.<hr></blockquote> Oh maybe thats why. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I used to get into trouble because I had a really big trap. I'd say things to people and they'd take offense because I'm not the soul of tact. It still plagues me.<hr></blockquote> Learned a lot in the last 11 years hey. Oh Mel get off the Tequila. How can we ever watch Braveheart knowing you just don't know what Chivas tastes like. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=joehillshoist>Joe Hillshoist</A> at: 8/8/06 5:53 am

by **Trifecta** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:40 am

Anyone who wants to understand why Israel has such unwavering support from the United States should speak to one man. Fiery television evangelist Pastor John Hagee has emerged as the rallying voice for thousands of American Christians who believe Israel is doing God's work in a "war of good versus evil". When he strode on to a stage in Washington last month, he was cheered to the rafters by 3,500 prominent evangelicals - as well as by Israel's ambassador to America, a former Israeli chief of staff and a host of US congressmen of both parties. "After 25 years of hammering away at the truth on national television, millions of people have come to see the truth of the word of God," Mr Hagee told The Daily Telegraph. "There is literally a groundswell of support for Israel in the USA among evangelicals." Twenty-five years ago, Mr Hagee was denounced as a heretic when he urged his fellow preachers to speak out in support of Israel. He also met with huge suspicion from Jews who thought that anti-Semitism was the standard evangelical belief. When he persevered and hosted a "night to honour Israel" in his hometown, San Antonio, there was a bomb threat and panicked Christian followers ran for the door. But today most of America's 60 million Christian evangelicals, who make up about a quarter of the US electorate and the essence of the President's "base", are behind Mr Bush's pro-Israeli position and are pushing for a showdown with Iran. As many as half of those are Christian Zionists. Mr Hagee said: "What we have done is united all of this evangelical horsepower and said, 'We're not just going to Washington to stand on the grass and sing Amazing Grace. We're going into the halls of Congress to see the senators and to see the congressmen face-to-face and to speak to them about our concerns for Israel'." His claim of political clout is no idle boast. The President sent a message of support praising him for "spreading the hope of God's Love and the universal gift of freedom". They met several times when Mr Bush was governor of Texas. America has long identified with Israel against its Arab foes. This backing has been shored up in Washington by the influential Israeli lobby. It also reflects a cultural affinity which is greater in the wake of the September 11 attacks: for most Americans, Israel is on the front line against terrorism. Another key factor in this bond, however, is Christian Zionism: a booming movement based on the idea that Israel's travails fulfil Biblical prophecy and are a forerunner of the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming. As the head of Christians United for Israel, an organisation linking hundreds of US evangelical leaders, it is no exaggeration to say that Mr Hagee is one of Israel's most influential supporters. Outside his mega-church is a facsimile "Wailing Wall". Inside on a flagpole is the Israeli flag and tributes from Israeli visitors, including prime minister Ehud Olmert, who came several times when he was mayor of Jerusalem. In his recent book, Jerusalem Countdown - A Warning to the World, Mr Hagee seeks a showdown between Islam and the West. "This is a religious war that Islam cannot and must not win," he writes. "The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching... Rejoice and be exceedingly glad the best is yet to be." He concedes it was a "difficult mountain to climb" to persuade evangelicals to back Israel. Many dispute his contention that some Jews can "find favour with God". Traditionally, evangelicals have argued that Jews will have to convert or face a double Holocaust at the battle of Armageddon. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/05/wmid10 5.xml

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:41 am

DreamsEnd-- You refer to some confusion over what the definitions should or shouldn't be regarding these terms. I think that's why I have been trying concede some of these terms..just to be able to get to the bottom of it all. There is the typical Hobbesian notion regarding "anarchy" that it means chaos, disorder...overthrowing governments, then simply sitting amongst the rubble, passing doobies. For anarcho-capitalists, it means the absence of coercive government, NOT the absence of law and order. My understanding from studying these leading classical Libertarians is that they seize upon the wording in the Declaration and say: "If the authors are saying what they mean, and mean what they say...then this Declaration passes our test. If they are good to their word and we are actually allowed to structure this "government" any way we like...what if we structure it WITHOUT coercion? Then...they can call it "government" ...of the non-coercive variety, and we can call it Libertarian anarchy. And everybody's happy." Now if somebody wanted to step in and argue that coercion NEEDS TO BE part of the equation..then we have a different discussion on our hands. Just to briefly broach that subject, it would seem that Libertarians certainly have the Declaration on their side in arguing that it gives complete freedom of choice as to what form the replacing organization can take. Dissenters would have to scramble to show that there exists elsewhere 'authoritative' definitions from the Founders requiring coercion. Plus they would have an uphill battle explaining the resulting contradiction this creates...given the Declaration's 100% autonomy it confers upon those who have driven out a tyrannical government and are now reorganizing. ON TOP OF THAT....please understand (I stated this in my previous post) Libertarians are not hoping and praying that libertarianism successfully conforms to the principles of the Founders. I (along with all classical Libertarians) believe in freedom and liberty, regardless of where or when the Founders may or may not have strayed from freedom principles. Libertarians will refer to the Declaration of Independence because it is a popular reference in American culture that would seem to get a 'foot in the door' for liberty. If the Declaration happens to have the good sense and good fortune to rise to the level of freedom principles...it is welcome to be my ally. That's how I see it. That is an interesting quote you provide from the Federalist Paper, and let the chips fall where they may (as to the possible sinister intentions of it's writer) when I say that...it sounds an awful lot like the ideas of Adam Weishaupt. If I'm reading it correctly, it's the basic idea famously advanced by Weishaupt, that there needs to be individuals with coercive powers (or coercive mechanisms controlled by certain individuals) in order to protect the less prosperous and the more prosperous, from each other. There is the Weishaupt quote (from James Robison's book "Proofs of a Conspiracy" from the 1790's) "The baneful influence of accumulated property....an insurmountable obstacle to the happiness of any nation...". That's a real can of worms, and the subject goes pretty deep. And how did Weishaupt envision the implementation of what he referred to as "the happiness of the human race."?: His aim was to "...form a durable combination of the most worthy persons [a power 'elite'] who should work together in removing the obstacles to human happiness, become terrible to the wicked...and should by the most powerful means, first fetter [modern English: handcuff or shackle], and by fettering, lessen vice, means which...should promote virtue." He wanted to put handcuffs on the entire human race. (Where do I sign up?) And presumably, he would define as "wicked" anyone who wanted to be free from those fetters. ----------- That whole concept, by the way, is considered by Libertarians to be THE fundamental flaw of any of those who have ever been swindled out of their liberty: Buying into the notion that because of the fallibility of human nature and the desire to take that which does not belong to us (whether the poor from the rich, by stealing and other crimes, OR rich from the poor, also by various kinds of theft ) we need to place ourselves under coercive authorities who will protect us from these people. It is precisely BECAUSE OF this fallibility that we should NEVER EVER have positions of coercive authority...because evil people who, indeed want to take that which is not theirs, are attracted to these positions. And once they get into these power positions they have no qualms of trying to parlay it into a 100% control...totalitarianism. AND....INDEED...that is where we now find ourselves-- the brink of the abyss. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rothbardian>rothbardian</A> at: 8/8/06 2:49 am

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:14 am

Hillshoist-- I think you're pegging me incorrectly, yet again. I don't believe in restricting 'gays' in any way. I have many gay friends. I welcome them in my life, my neighborhood, my place of business, and my home. Libertarianism advocates full freedom to all. Parisian-- Wow. Nice find on that '95 Gibson interview. I'm amazed how much that guy knew back in '95. I guess I better read up more on this Opus Dei thing. When people seem to know almost too much and too long ago (even before the Internet) it kind of makes you nervous. Kind of like when Tarpley and LaRouche have so much spectacular info...and knew it all years in the past. Who are these people...really?

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:43 am

So what do you define as liberalism then?

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Buying into the notion that because of the fallibility of human nature and the desire to take that which does not belong to us (whether the poor from the rich, by stealing and other crimes, OR rich from the poor, also by various kinds of theft ) we need to place ourselves under coercive authorities who will protect us from these people.<hr></blockquote> The motivations of most of these people are simply capitalistic. They don't care about laws or government, and invented or co opted it to serve their purposes. And they are traditionally anarchistic in that they allow no coercive force to mediate their actions. Its the excessive coercive force the US government has somehow authorised itself that is the major threat to "freedom" today. Sure the US has been moving that way, slouching toward Bethlahem if you like, since day one. The constitution, which is actually a socialist document, on a seriously deep level, all representative (whether its a falsehood or not)government aims (in its visionary or mythological sense, in plato's platonic perfect world if nowhere else) to be a socialist balance to the imbalance of everyday life. The constitution aims to make some balance that isn't really there. But its been used to hide the fact that it only applies to americans and everyone is food for the system. Now the system is unable to feed itself and begins to consume itself in a blind pointless chase of resources that are no longer available outside its territory. There is no government to protect me here. All law enforcement can do for me is pick up the pieces. If I can't protect myself I am screwed. Cept everyone here is in the same boat so we all look after each other where we can. But no one causes trouble out here cos this place has a reputation. Well not many people cause trouble out here and its our business usually. No one comes here and causes trouble to us. (Cept yuppies. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> ) Thats effectively an anarchist community. But the capitalism bit is where it all falls down. Capitalism is based on some concept of a growing economy. But at some point the economy uses the resources at its disposal and needs more. Thats where the coersion comes in, killing the abos and flogging their resources, to put it crudely. Thats what expansion effectively is. I often wonder if economists have ever heard of physics.

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:20 pm

Hillshoist-- You make the comment that "most of these people are simply capitalistic". If we removed the system according to the (insincere?) offer of the Declaration of Independence...then "these people" that you refer to, would be up a creek. That's good for me and you. Right now "these people" are getting ready to plunge the world into totalitarianism. That's why I struggle to understand the mindset of people like Captain Nemo, for example, who goes into detail of just how corrupt the American system is and how it was cynically and deliberately structured from top to bottom, to facilitate a power monopoly for evil purposes.....BUT HE AND MANY OTHERS HERE STILL WANT TO CLING TO THAT SYSTEM! It's rotten to the core. Pull it up by the roots, just as the (disingenuous?) words of the Declaration advise us to do. Then you also state that "these people" are "traditionally anarchistic" and "allow no coercive force to mediate their actions." But in the absence of coercive centralized government, they have nowhere to turn. It's largely now a level playing field. If they come onto your property (such as you say you've experienced in the past) you yourself can "mediate their actions" any way you please. And the gun-toting bureaucrats (police) who spend most of their time sitting in donut shops (apparently Australia is no different than USA in that regard?) instead of exerting their authority in our defense (the way they're supposed to)...are no longer needed.

Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Re: Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Re: Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Gods work against gods party...ummm

Re: More time travel...with Howard Dean

Gibson/Opus Dei

Re: Gibson/Opus Dei

Re: More time travel...with Howard Dean

Re: More time travel...with Howard Dean

Who is online