Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 01/11/2005 8:07:18 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:

Troll bait.



Skip to comments.

Mel Gibson post-award press conference-"Kinship" with Michael Moore

Posted on 01/10/2005 10:33:48 AM PST by bushfamfan

Does anyone have the quotes that Mel Gibson apparently made after receiving his People's Choice Award in saying he felt a "kinship" with Michael Moore and attacking the war in Iraq?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: melgibson; neopaleoconman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-366 next last
To: Tempest

Yes I know. Someone asked about whether Mel's a conservative and I posted that in response to it.


301 posted on 01/10/2005 8:36:10 PM PST by Trippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"My father was a Democrat and a segregationist for most of his life. I disagreed with him publicy over it, and he ended his life understanding that his views were racist, and he repudiated them."

Good for you, and, in the end, good for him.

302 posted on 01/10/2005 8:38:09 PM PST by Artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: yankee doodle andy II
Goodbye LIBERAL. This is a CONSERVATIVE FORUM and DU is thata way.........................>
303 posted on 01/10/2005 8:41:43 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

FR's getting a whole lot of crazy newbies. :-(


304 posted on 01/10/2005 8:49:01 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: John Allan Shephard

No,HE wasn't and HE wasn't a Libertarian either.


305 posted on 01/10/2005 8:49:55 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Happygal

Sorry, I just ping for trolls. In fact I haven't used the list for awhile.



306 posted on 01/10/2005 8:52:24 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: yankee doodle andy II
"Okay, this had (Sic) got to be a joke. My harmless little post couldn't possibly have engendered such vituperation. Give me a break...... You're another liberal, right? Just horsing around? Either that or you're just nuts"

How quickly the pattern of "debate" establishes itself: From "a joke" to just little 'ole me whining ("my harmless little post") to faux disbelief ("you're another liberal, right?") to the outright, and refreshing, "you're just nuts" gratuitous insult. And liberalism's fervent adherents wonder why their's is a dessicated, withering creed...

"Seriously, if this was a sincere response, how does merely identifying myself as a liberal transmogrify into bragging? I'm not out to win any arguments in here. Maybe I'm just testing the waters a bit to see how long it takes before I get stomped to death"

"Transmogrify"? LOL, I love it. But, in any event, here's how: you posted a rant in a forum that you obviously must have realized is not, by and large, congenial to your stated ideology...what did you expect, one wonders? The scales to fall from our eyes? Road to Damascus conversions en masse? The arrogance, coupled with the followup mewling about the meanie reply you encountered (thanks to moi), is staggering.

"Actually, I work in the motion picture business in Hollywood. Though I am by no means wealthy, I have to cop to being among the so-called media elite I hear guys like Joe Scarborough complaining so much about. Personally, I have absolutely no objections to Mel Gibson making a faith based film about Jesus and the Passion. By any standards, the story of the Christ is a drama of enormous, almost unbearable dramatic power. I think Gibson's approach is vastly superior to films like KING OF KINGS which show little, if any, insight into the life, times and death of Jesus. While I personally preferred THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, which dared to meet questions of divinity head on, I think an approach like Gibson's, where the audience is shocked into a higher state of awareness, has merit. Everytime I heard that all the liberals out here were screaming in protest over Gibson's film, I just sort of scratched my head and wondered who was making this stuff up. Here's what THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and FAHRENHEIT 9/11 have in common. Both are independently produced projects, completely devoid of the kind watering down that studio productions are famous for, created by deep feeling men with strong world views for reasons other than mere commerce. Both films seek to challenge their respective audiences. Both films were successful in pushing people's buttons. Both films are works of art which have stirred up enormous controversy."

All well and good--great, in fact; glad to hear it.

"There's no such thing as an innocuous work of art. All true art seeks to explore the human condition"

Not quite. "Art," in it's most moving forms, is inherently reactionary; a reaffirmation of either certain basic truths about human nature (not the human "condition"), or an expression of a yearning wish that something lost, diminished, or once deeply felt could be recovered, burnished, and/or restored to some degree of it's former luster. The human "condition" is constantly changing, depending upon the era/society; human nature remains constant--for better and for worse--year after year after year, since forever in the human memory. It is that stubbornly unchanging fact that is the basis of the examination of our most compelling, moving works of "art." Which is precisely why modern "progressives" simply don't get it, despite all of their slavish devotion to the notion of what it means to be "artistic": they believe human nature is "perfectible," while truly compelling "art" proves over and over and over again that the exact opposite is true. Repeatedly.

307 posted on 01/10/2005 9:02:31 PM PST by A Jovial Cad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Happygal; Neets; Darksheare; scott0347; timpad; KangarooJacqui; The Scourge of Yazid; ...

In fact, this thread has been totally infested by trolls.

Guys, this is my last ping of the RKBA list.


308 posted on 01/10/2005 9:03:49 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

ARGH!


309 posted on 01/10/2005 9:05:46 PM PST by Happygal (liberalism - a narrow tribal outlook largely founded on class prejudice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
It sure has been and why the Hollywood LIBERAL/B> thinks he/she belongs here,is beyond me.
310 posted on 01/10/2005 9:09:08 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad

Res Ipse Loquitor ...


311 posted on 01/10/2005 9:09:08 PM PST by Seajay (Ordem e Progresso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: yankee doodle andy II
"While I personally preferred THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, which dared to meet questions of divinity head on,"

_____________________________

Do you mean such compelling questions such as whether or not Jesus sat in a room all day with Mary Magdalene watching her service her customers? Or, how about Harvey Keitel as Judas complete with a Brooklyn goombah accent. Yes, that certainly was a daring movie by one of Hollywood's most respected leftist directors.

I had my fill of drama drips like you a long time ago and thought I would be free from them on this forum. Do yourself (and us) a favor and go somewhere else to tell your meaningless stories and use your new thesaurus.

You are absolutely in the wrong place. Certainly your time is more valuable than that.
312 posted on 01/10/2005 9:10:18 PM PST by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

Comment #313 Removed by Moderator

To: EstesKefauver
--If you had bothered to SEE the movie, you'd realize that Moore wasn't portraying Saddam's Iraq as "a nice place to live" so much as he was showing what daily life was like in Baghdad before the war began. He had several images of people going about their daily business: children playing; people congregating in public places; people living their daily lives WITHOUT WAR AND WITHOUT BOMBS DROPPING ALL AROUND THEM.

I've watched that overhyped piece of turd, so I feel at least somewhat qualified to comment on it.

If Moore-on was so intent on accurately portraying Iraqi life before the war, then why didn't he show the jailed/tortured/murdered dissidents? Or the rape rooms? Speaking of which, why didn't he interview any of the women who were unfortunate enough to catch Uday or Qusay's eye -- and live to tell about it ("it" being the brutal rapes they endured)?

What about those who spoke out -- or were just believed to have spoken out -- against Saddam Hussein's murderous regime, and got stuffed into plastic shredders, feet first?

Sheah, Saddam's Iraq was Disneyland on the Euphrates...

314 posted on 01/10/2005 9:12:26 PM PST by NYC GOP Chick (www.Hillary-Watch.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason; A Jovial Cad; MeekOneGOP; arasina; Darksheare; Neets; bentfeather; ...
Unsuccessful (Democratic) presidential campaign slogans:

1864-

We need a man like McClellan to put an end to this senseless quagmire, once and for all!

1984-

If you like high marginal tax rates, you'll love Walter Mondale!

2004-

Hey, Hussein could have lost! You never know how those wily Tikritis are going to break.

315 posted on 01/10/2005 9:14:26 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham ("Oi! Oi! Is this a proper parliament?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Mase; Cacique; Clemenza; PARodrig
You tellin' me, the Apostles weren't from Brooklyn?(!)

I believe I've just had a religious epiphany.

316 posted on 01/10/2005 9:16:18 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham ("Oi! Oi! Is this a proper parliament?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick

Now, now-Saddam's palaces were very nice. /sarcasm


317 posted on 01/10/2005 9:18:47 PM PST by WestVirginiaRebel (Conservatism pays off. Liberalism just wants to be paid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Seajay

Yes, indeed: the matter does speak for itself...


318 posted on 01/10/2005 9:19:40 PM PST by A Jovial Cad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: tinkthinks

And maybe,newbie just signed up this minute,YOU are on the wrong forum.Ya think?


319 posted on 01/10/2005 9:20:40 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel; A Jovial Cad; EstesKefauver; stands2reason; NYC GOP Chick
Estes Kefauver:

(The late freeper, not the late-and lame-United States Senator.)

Dude, like, why did you guys ban me?

:)

-good Thames, G.J.P.(Jr.)

320 posted on 01/10/2005 9:21:40 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham ("Oi! Oi! Is this a proper parliament?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: tinkthinks
Uh-huh...right-o. /sarcasm

Jeeze, this thread is lousy with trolls..

321 posted on 01/10/2005 9:24:20 PM PST by A Jovial Cad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Did you see that South Park episode about him last year? ;D


322 posted on 01/10/2005 9:30:29 PM PST by NYC GOP Chick (www.Hillary-Watch.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad
Some signing up and immediately posting to this thread. Makes one wonder if it's one troll with now multiple nics.
323 posted on 01/10/2005 9:32:02 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Either that, or some creep over in DUmmyland has posted a link directly to this thread. I've observed the pattern before in that cesspool: a DUmmie will post a link to something here at FR, and before you know it they're crawling out of the woodwork over here, with same day sign-ups and obvious troll nics.

Whatever the case, they've certainly been crawling all over this thread tonight!

324 posted on 01/10/2005 9:46:16 PM PST by A Jovial Cad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad

I didn't know they did that over at DU. They do it on LP...but that's the VILLAGE OF THE BANNED and some,over there,have had multiple nics here for years and years,so that when one nic gets banned,they still have others to use. These are FR's "sleeper cells".


325 posted on 01/10/2005 9:48:39 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad

Great response! While I don't agree that my original post was a rant, I find your response, taken as a whole, to be both fascinating and invigorating.

I think we might be splitting semantical hairs, and while I do not consider myself to be intrinsically anti-semantic, I think we actually are not, by any means, at polar opposites in our views regarding art. I would agree that human nature is pretty much a constant, and I would go further to say that, insofar as nature informs our circumstances then the human condition is likewise a continuum. If this were not so, then the works of Euripides, Shakespeare, Lorca, Coboabe, Mark Twaine, Balzac and countless others would fall on deaf ears. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that art is reactionary. Certainly the ancient Greeks wrote dramas that may be considered such (Trojan Women, The Frogs, and The Birds come readily to mind), but I am among those who consider art to be largely (though not exclusively) aesthetic rather than didactic in purpose.

Brecht was a true didacticist, no doubt. So was Lorca in his own way. Having said this, I believe, nontheless, that most art takes a more open ended approach to the eternal human struggle. It may sound corny but art seeks to ask questions, rather than answer them. This is why art has such explosive potential.


Whoever you are, you're obviously both very smart and wickedly funny.

Would you mind explaining what you mean when you say that art is reactionary? Oh, and by the way, my comment about you being nuts wasn't an attack. It was a stab at humor. I'll concede that you're funnier than I am. In any case, I'm not likely to be hanging around here much longer.


326 posted on 01/10/2005 9:50:52 PM PST by yankee doodle andy II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Mase

Centuries ago the Catholic Church considered to be heretical any assertion that Jesus, during his brief time on earth, was not equally corporeal and spiritual. Why else would Jesus bother to live as a man if not to understand through experience what humanity endures on a daily basis? That much of modern theology seeks to discount the physical aspect of Jesus' existence is troubling to many classical theologians. The presence of the human urge as an intrinsic part of transcendant spirituality provides the paradox which is dramatized in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. Harvey Keitel's Brooklyn accent notwithstanding, I found the film compelling and thought provoking. I believe that the director was exploring his own faith in creating such a film.


327 posted on 01/10/2005 10:02:05 PM PST by yankee doodle andy II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: bushfamfan

The Passion of Christ was a snuff movie


328 posted on 01/10/2005 10:03:19 PM PST by chemical_boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #329 Removed by Moderator

To: A Jovial Cad
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2931977

Either that, or some creep over in DUmmyland has posted a link directly to this thread.

And here it is.

330 posted on 01/10/2005 10:31:46 PM PST by bad company (a conservative bases his politics on his morals,a lib bases his morals on his politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

Comment #331 Removed by Moderator

To: yankee doodle andy II

BTW, that's supposed to be "corporal"; not "corporeal". I haven't quite figured out this board.


332 posted on 01/10/2005 10:53:52 PM PST by yankee doodle andy II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: yankee doodle andy II
"Would you mind explaining what you mean when you say that art is reactionary?"

Happy to oblige. Let us consider, for a moment, one of the oldest of oldest stories still current: two heartsick teenagers who both believe all the problems of life can be distilled to the essence of their passion for each other; crappy parents with serious future in-law implications; an unexpected series of almost comic (and I stress ALMOST) SNAFU's; and all the while a miniature war, of sorts, rages, froths, bubbles, and seethes in the background...

And yet...we're understanding of the situation; stirred by the circumstance; and moved by the denouement. EVERY bit of it, logically examined in the light of rationality right up to the end, seems to make no sense--until it does. And when they both die, something in the mundane about it moves us: a spark of understanding flickers through the centuries, and grounds itself in the realization that, yes, those kind of intrinsically human feelings--of feverish adolescent longings; of seemingly senseless conflict swirling hither & yon about oneself like a vortex; of sad ends to badly cut cards in this-or-that particular round of life--have always existed--and will always exist.

Shakespeare was a genius not because he plowed any new ground and sprouted something new in the process; he was a genius because he told us tales about things we already instinctively understood in a way that resonates hundreds of years hence--and will for thousands of years to come. That is true "Art," in every sense of the word: a reminder, not a prognosis.

Such Art, in it's most beautiful, enduring forms, is always thus: a verdict-delivered in the affirmative on the ancient truth that there isn't much new cooking under the Sun; and that even the most precious things we hold in it are common experiences, shared across the ages.

333 posted on 01/10/2005 11:19:58 PM PST by A Jovial Cad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: bad company
I suspected as much--thanks for confirming it.

Their smarmy obsessions with their intellectual betters never seems to cease.

334 posted on 01/10/2005 11:30:35 PM PST by A Jovial Cad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x272702

They are so much fun. Guess which poster I am on this thread?


335 posted on 01/10/2005 11:41:35 PM PST by bad company (a conservative bases his politics on his morals,a lib bases his morals on his politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad

Wow, and I always thought that Romeo and Juliet was a play about the transitory nature of love, hate and ultimately, life. Perhaps I'm being silly, but when you call art "intrinsically reactionary", I am led to believe that you feel that all art is political. As a matter of personal choice, I try not to view the aesthetic through political prisms. I'll be pondering your post for some time. At the present moment, I feel you speak quite eloquently but not necessarily to the point. It's been a fun diversion. Thanks to all.


336 posted on 01/10/2005 11:51:44 PM PST by yankee doodle andy II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Guys, this is my last ping of the RKBA list.

Tonight or forever? That had a touch of finality to it.
337 posted on 01/11/2005 12:13:36 AM PST by BJClinton (65,535)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

Comment #338 Removed by Moderator

Comment #339 Removed by Moderator

To: stands2reason

The keywords on this post are like a fire to a moth. Trolls are drawn to Mel Gibson Threads and Michael Moore threads. Combine them and all heck breaks loose.


340 posted on 01/11/2005 4:42:24 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Could someone tell me how to set up a tagline? Any help is appreciated. Thanks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: missyme

Does Jesus Christ also love the insane followers of Jesus Christ or just the "sane" followers of Jesus Christ.


341 posted on 01/11/2005 6:55:58 AM PST by joedeedee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: joedeedee

Of course Jesus loves everyone, I don't think he stipulated any one group of people he was dying for.


342 posted on 01/11/2005 8:03:10 AM PST by missyme (tart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: GregGinn
"I'm sorry...'talking points'? Let's see, our administration swears there are WMD's, hence the reason we're invading Iraq and then we don't find any. How is this a 'leftist' talking point? I'm simply curious to know where they are. That's all"

______________________________

Do you really believe that WMD's were the only reason we went to war in Iraq? Could Iraq, like Afghanistan, be an integral part of the war on terror? The MSM would like you to separate the two and, if you rely on the NY Times for your news and information, I could accept the fact that you did not know any better but, you have been on this forum for a long time and have access to a great deal of proof that Iraq is about much more than WMD. Maybe that's why your conservative credentials are being questioned.

Were you concerned at all that the German's, English and Russian's all believed that Hussein had WMD too? Explain why Hussein would risk his power, family and wealth if he did not have WMD. If nothing existed; why not just let the inspectors find nothing and stop the USA in their tracks and avoid war altogether?

Beyond that; what about the fact that Iraq was regularly shooting missiles at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone? Is this not an act of war? What about his refusal to comply with umpteen resolutions by the UN? How about his financing of homicide bombers who have killed so many innocent Israeli women and children? Is the world safer without Hussein in power?

By fighting in Iraq we are also fighting Iran. It's very similar to what we did to defeat the Soviets by fighting their client states. Reforming the Middle East is our only hope for draining the swamp that produces terrorists. How else will you stop the schools that take young minds and make them hate so much that they will kill on command? How else do you stop the states that finance and harbor these thugs?

Iraq and Al Qaida were in bed long before 9-11. You have to look hard to find the proof but it is out there. Don't rely on the MSM for that since they have no interest in the truth. Hussein gave sanctuary to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yassin and al Zarquawi. Hussein trained terrorists at Salman Pak. Why people refuse to see this, like our President did, is just dumbfounding. See this link for more valuable information: http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://husseinandterror.com/
343 posted on 01/11/2005 8:06:53 AM PST by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: joedeedee
"Does Jesus Christ also love the insane followers of Jesus Christ or just the "sane" followers of Jesus Christ."


How would you, joedeedee new at FR today, differentiate between "sane" and "insane" Christians?
344 posted on 01/11/2005 8:17:03 AM PST by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: chuckago

No I don't. If you actually read my post, you would see that I listed a few examples of actors who could separate fiction from reality. I didn't put the Gipper on the list because he was already involved in politics..........


345 posted on 01/11/2005 10:06:07 AM PST by GeorgeW23225 (Liberals really aren*t bad people. It*s just that they know so much that simply ISN*T true!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: bad company
I guess things must be a little boring over at DU, since they don't have an election to steal.........

Let's hope the tin foil hat wearing, vulgar trolls from DU actually LEARN something while they're here. But. I doubt it!!
346 posted on 01/11/2005 10:20:42 AM PST by GeorgeW23225 (Liberals really aren*t bad people. It*s just that they know so much that simply ISN*T true!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

Comment #347 Removed by Moderator

To: NYC GOP Chick
You can't rationalize or debate intelligently with the unintelligent. Save your breath. They are hopeless.

No one in their right mind would defend a piece of propaganda trash like F9/11......
348 posted on 01/11/2005 10:30:28 AM PST by GeorgeW23225 (Liberals really aren*t bad people. It*s just that they know so much that simply ISN*T true!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Mase

"Is the world safer without Hussein in power?"

Good question. Is the world "safer" today then when the war began?

It would be hard to prove one way or the other. Have bombings around the world increased or decreased since the occupation began? Does this fact have anything to do with Saddams arrest? Has al-queda become weaker or stronger since the war began?

All of these questions are very difficult to answer and would only be a start as to whether the world is "safer" or not with Saddam out of power.

A parallel question might be, is the world safer now that the Soviet Union no longer exists?


349 posted on 01/11/2005 10:50:52 AM PST by Clorinox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

Comment #350 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-366 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson