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

Skip to comments.

Mel Gibson Did It Again!
foxnews ^ | Thursday , October 19, 2006 | Father Jonathan Morris

Posted on 10/19/2006 4:01:14 PM PDT by flixxx

Never before had I made an intercontinental flight to see a movie. But that's what I did this month when I accepted Mel Gibson's invitation to preview and critique his new film “Apocalypto,” scheduled to appear in theaters on December 8th.

I didn't make the trek across the ocean for entertainment value. My work as a consultant on and off the set of Gibson's “Passion of the Christ,” gave me a new appreciation of the power of well-made, serious, and widely-distributed movies. They influence culture. They affect the way we think about the story they tell. Sometimes they warp our view of history or of humanity. Other times they inform, inspire, and challenge. But they always leave a mark.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: antijewbritpopebush; apococaca; assholypto; barf; bloodmoney; eldopo; loco; melgibson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-141 next last
To: Phsstpok; TommyDale

And BTW, anyone can pick a police report up from a police clerk right after an arrest (usually with a small reprinting fee). That's probably what TMZ and other newspaper companies did.


51 posted on 10/19/2006 5:30:07 PM PDT by familyop (Roma est perdita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: flixxx

I love movies and I hope it's great, but this priest worked for Mel and is openly a devotee of Gibson.


52 posted on 10/19/2006 5:30:48 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok; TommyDale
Yo, Tommy. Humor has much more relevance if it's even remotely based on reality.

The comment in question referenced something that actually happened.

Sticking your fingers in your ears will not UNSAY Mel Gibson's stupidly anti-jewish statements.

53 posted on 10/19/2006 5:32:07 PM PDT by Wormwood (Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter because nobody listens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Say what you are saying is that the Father is lying about his review because he loves Mel?????


54 posted on 10/19/2006 5:33:27 PM PDT by brigada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: brigada

lOl!

55 posted on 10/19/2006 5:38:12 PM PDT by Capn TrVth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: brigada

I'm saying that as someone who works for Mel his review might not be unbiased. How do I know if he is lying practically no one has seen the film.


56 posted on 10/19/2006 5:44:14 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: familyop; TommyDale
TMZ has learned

Yep.  That's admissible in court. /NOT 

Do you understand the concept of "chain of evidence?"   How about the simple idea of having a witness or source that can be cross examined?  It's really not that hard.  Everything out there so far cited as "proof" appears to be worthless.

Think both Richard Jewell and O J Simpson.  I don't care whether they are guilty or innocent.  I care about what you can prove.  TMZ is a BS source and 100% worthless, IMO.  That is not something you can challenge.  I specifically challenge you on that point.  Cite me instances where they have been proven right?  I have found none, admittedly with minimal searching.  I afford them about the same credibility I do to Democrat Underground.  DU is questionable for ideological bias.  TMZ, so far as I can tell, is simply questionable.  I have never found anything that checked out from them.  That's not a lot of instances, but it is a pattern for the ones I've bothered to check out.

So far as has been proved Mel Gibson said nothing that night to anyone.  Prove me wrong.  Something that would stand up to even simple scrutiny, let alone a court of law.

Otherwise we're wasting our time.

Again, that has zero value for the actual guilt or innocence (or sleaziness) of the folks involved.  It only has an affect on what we can prove.

Do you understand the difference?  Do you understand that, with evidence, I'm not opposed to your conclusion?  I ask only that minor details be addressed, like evidence.  I'm sorry if that seems unreasonable to you.

57 posted on 10/19/2006 5:44:22 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

Braveheart is my favorite. I loved The Passion as well. Regardless of his recent wackoism, I look forward to this one as well.


58 posted on 10/19/2006 5:46:07 PM PDT by reaganandme (You don't beat a liberal by becoming one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: brigada
Say what you are saying is that the Father is lying about his review because he loves Mel?????

Lying's probably too strong a word. More like unable to see the warts in a friend's work just like a mother will hold up a mess of scrawls, point to her child and suggest that he has a future in the art world.
59 posted on 10/19/2006 5:47:53 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: flixxx

Mel has done it again! His film matters. That's my critique of Apocalypto.

Don't get me wrong. This is no sequel to The Passion of the Christ.

Some of his fervent fans will be disappointed if they were hoping for another religious epic. Mel just didn't have it in him. He doesn't see himself as a prophet, a spiritual director, or a religious role model.

But he knows how to make movies, and he has been making good and responsible ones for a very long time.

That's what Mel has done again. He's made a heart-stopping, mythic action-adventure that tells an ancient story in a way that matters.

During the process of releasing the Passion, Mel realized a tremendous hunger in the audience for a different kind of film. Talking about his reasoning for making Apocalypto he said, "People want big stories that say something to them emotionally and touch them spiritually."


Of all of his past films, this one most resembles Braveheart.
The only difference is that it takes place in an ancient Mayan jungle, is spoken in the ancient Mayan language, and is represented by a bunch of unknown actors who, for the most part, had never acted before.
Oh yeah, and the story is not about Scotland's fight for independence from the Brits, but rather the fight for personal and spiritual independence of a hero who risks his life to free himself from an opulent, but now decaying pre-European Mayan culture.

The protagonist is Juguar Paw (played by newcomer Rudy Youngblood). He is innocent. He is strong. He is in love with his wife, his family, and his traditional culture.
In the darkness of an ordinary night, invaders abruptly interrupt his idyllic existence. What ensues is a riveting and relentless chase film that provides a unique context for telling a story about personal and societal survival.

The analogy to our present culture is discreet, but powerful. A society that allows itself to fall apart from within will be unable to withstand threats from without.

Warning: count on a few typical Gibsonian scenes that my sensitivities could have done without (one in particular was unnecessarily vulgar).

I suggest you watch it alone before you take your kids.
I took notes as I sat alone in the theatre, as I talked with the producers, and as I've studied the Mayan culture since then. If you like, I'll continue to share some of these notes with you and answer your questions, right here on this blog.

God bless, Father Jonathan


60 posted on 10/19/2006 5:48:53 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

So much for our defense of Gibson. Oh well, Hollywood elite. What did we expect.


61 posted on 10/19/2006 5:49:45 PM PDT by beckysueb (Pray for President Bush and our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Williams

The good father does not work for Mr. Gibson. He was an unpaid religious consultant on The Passion. He is viewing Apocalypto has a favor for Mel.


62 posted on 10/19/2006 5:51:42 PM PDT by brigada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok

You already specifically challenged someone on the contents of the report. Hearsay is admissible in civil courts. Getting a copy of a police report is no crime, AFAIK. TMZ is showing a copy, and the same news company probably has hardcopy.

* I am not an attorney. If readers of this message want legal advice, they should seek properly licensed attorneys.

But I appears that you are an attorney (and if so, one I would not hire).


63 posted on 10/19/2006 5:55:39 PM PDT by familyop (Roma est perdita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: familyop

>the slaughter of thousands of inhabitants as human sacrifices
>in a bid to save the nation from collapsing.

There's a much stronger comparison to be made to our (USA) propensity to abort millions of children each year.


64 posted on 10/19/2006 5:55:39 PM PDT by ROTB (Our Constitution ... only for a moral and religious people... -- John Q. Adams, October 11, 1798)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
The comment in question referenced something that actually happened.

Please provide proof of that statement.  So far I have found nothing that would be accepted in a court of law.  I am not defending the alleged conduct.  I'm asking for something beyond a lynch mob who "knows the truth" regardless of evidence.

If you can provide something that will stand up to scrutiny (an illegally leaked version of a supposed "police report" doesn't count, sorry, breaking the law destroys the chain of evidence and we can't tell if it's real or BS) then I'll listen.  If you have anything else, I'll listen.  If you are basing your comments on "what you just know, in your gut" or "what you heard from a friend" or even what you "learned on the net" then, quite simply, we are done.

I want evidence.  I'm sorry if that's a problem for you.  I want to establish the facts of this story.  I refuse to be swept up by the mob.  Are you that gullible?  Are you that open to truth, as opposed to "Truth?"

Convince me.
 

65 posted on 10/19/2006 5:55:57 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok

...it appears, even.


66 posted on 10/19/2006 5:56:49 PM PDT by familyop (Roma est perdita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: unspun

"I remember the English complaining about "Braveheart." Then there were the ludicrously unsupported claims of "The Passion of the Christ" being anti-Jew."

Gay groups voiced hatred for Mel as well. They objected to that scene where Longshanks throws his son's lover out a window.

They sure got even didn't they?


67 posted on 10/19/2006 5:58:49 PM PDT by TET1968 (SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok; TommyDale; Wormwood

Follow the link (from the article I posted) to TMZ's photocopy (PDF) of the report. Mel's comment as quoted by the police witness is there.

"four pages of the original report prepared by
the arresting officer in the case"
http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/gibson_wm_docs_072806.pdf

Even when moved, this goalpost tends to snap back into place, doesn't it.


68 posted on 10/19/2006 6:01:58 PM PDT by familyop (Roma est perdita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: flixxx

Mel Gibson has said and done some strange things over the past year. But I'm still suspending judgment on the movie.

I've seen the previews at the website, and now I've read this review. It looks like a great film. Maybe it won't be. But frankly, however politically correct and Hollywoodishly Mel talked about it in recent interviews, I'd rather let the movie speak for itself.

I'll be very surprised if it's politically correct. Yes, it will be about the downfall of an empire built on cruelty. That's not America, at least not yet. Only a leftist idiot would think so. If there's any parallel between the blood sacrifices of the Aztec Empire and America, it's the abortion holocaust. But it would have caused too much of a firestorm for Mel to say so. I think he's trailing a false scent across liberal noses with those interviews.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Mel may be antisemitic, drunk, and crazy, but he makes great movies, and I doubt whether he will suddenly reverse himself on that. We'll see.


69 posted on 10/19/2006 6:10:43 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Hearsay is admissible in civil courts.

BS.  The crap out there on the net about this supposed police report is 100% impeachable and worthless.  No competent judge would allow it and, if they did, they would be reversed on appeal in about 10 seconds.

This would 100% require the original police report.  If this went to court that would be made available under court order.  If the report provided by the police matched what is on the web then we're in business, but that is hardly a foregone conclusion, or are you that dumb?  If you are then I have this bridge I want to sell you in Brooklyn.

Again, I'm not challenging the conclusion, if evidence can be provided.  I'm challenging both the evidence and THE INTELLIGENCE AND HONESTY of the folks pushing rumor as if it were fact. 

Now I'm beginning to question what the agenda is of those who are so invested in proving that Mel Gibson is "the son of Satan."  Might there be a Moby in the mix?  Maybe a Pelosi warrior?  It's clear that some in the DBM are serving that agenda.  Are folks here?  What is the motive of those who are so anxious to trash someone without verifiable proof?   Could it be political?  Could it be associated with trying to trash the Christian voters, particularly those associated with embracing Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ?  Particularly in the two and one half weeks before the election?  Enguiring minds want to know.  What, pray tell, is your motivation here?

Is that you, Moby? 

70 posted on 10/19/2006 6:10:53 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: familyop; Phsstpok; TommyDale
Why do I suspect that even this will fail to make an impression on certain posters?

The fact that Gibson hasn't hauled TMZ (and/or the police officers in question) into court on libel/defamation seems muchmore relevent than the hysterical denials on this thread.

71 posted on 10/19/2006 6:17:06 PM PDT by Wormwood (Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter because nobody listens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
"He tells British film magazine Hotdog, "The fear-mongering we depict in the film reminds me of President Bush and his guys"." ~ familyop

He's doing his penance to get back into the good graces of Hollywood.


I suspected as much. Even if true, I don’t regard that as a valid excuse for his anti-Bush comments. I’ll probably be inclined to see the movie because of his prior movies.

He needs to make Harvest of Sorrow about the Ukrainian holocaust of 1931-32. The author of that event was the Democrats’ favorite “Uncle Joe” Stalin. The press, NYT in particular, covered up that holocaust. To Stalin and Hitler, it must have looked as if we did not care. If there is anyone who might make this movie, it’s Mel Gibson.
72 posted on 10/19/2006 6:17:27 PM PDT by ChessExpert (Republicans resign: Packwood, Livingston, Foley. Dems don't: Kennedy, Frank, Clinton, Studds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: familyop; TommyDale; Wormwood

Provide proof that this is really the police report.

That's real simple.

Who wrote it? Who released it? Was it legal for them to do that? If they broke the law in releasing it, what value does it have? If they released it without approval then they broke a much bigger law than Gibson is alleged to have broken, so who will you believe? Who will a jury believe?

Those really are simple questions.

If you don't understand that then we don't have a basis for a reasonable discussion.

So far what I see could be the fantasy of a person who really really hates Mel Gibson. Whether that be the alleged officer who wrote this (not established as fact) or the miscreant who faked it.

Did he do this and say these things? Right now, that's not the question for me. For me the question is is there any evidence that can be taken into a court of law on this topic? I can't determine that so far.


73 posted on 10/19/2006 6:18:10 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: unspun

LOLOLOLOL........


74 posted on 10/19/2006 6:19:23 PM PDT by jaycee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Guess he goes on my $hi! list. Whats he trying to prove now?


75 posted on 10/19/2006 6:22:18 PM PDT by jaycee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok
" Now I'm beginning to question what the agenda is of those who are so invested in proving that Mel Gibson is "the son of Satan." Might there be a Moby in the mix? Maybe a Pelosi warrior? It's clear that some in the DBM are serving that agenda. Are folks here? What is the motive of those who are so anxious to trash someone without verifiable proof? Could it be political? Could it be associated with trying to trash the Christian voters, particularly those associated with embracing Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ? Particularly in the two and one half weeks before the election? Enguiring minds want to know. What, pray tell, is your motivation here?

Is that you, Moby?
"

Circular arguments are fun. Photocopies and witnesses can be more fun than that.

"four pages of the original report prepared by the arresting officer in the case" (TMZ)
http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/gibson_wm_docs_072806.pdf
76 posted on 10/19/2006 6:25:42 PM PDT by familyop (Roma est perdita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
Why do I suspect that even this will fail to make an impression on certain posters?

Well, you got that right.

This speculation provided here has zero value in a court of law and less in this discussion.

I'm beginning to get much more interested in why certain folks are so invested in trashing Mel Gibson, particularly relating that trashing to The Passion Of The Christ, than I am in what he did or didn't say when he was arrested for driving drunk several weeks ago.  And remember, he was DRUNK.  That means, by definition, he isn't in control of what he does and says.  Or does that concept escape you?

What is the agenda here that so many are so emotionally invested in? 

Don't give me the "I know" crap.  Provide something, anything, that can be taken into a court of law.

What is so difficult about that concept?

Or don't you believe in the rule of law? 

77 posted on 10/19/2006 6:27:43 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok

Since Mel Gibson made it a point to apologize for saying it, he likely said it, wouldn't you think? Why apologize for something you DIDN'T say?


78 posted on 10/19/2006 6:29:17 PM PDT by TommyDale (Iran President Ahmadinejad is shorter than Tom Daschle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I was on Gibson's side too until I read that post. He doesn't like Jews or Christians, seems like. He knows the President is a Christian. Mel is nothing to me now and he was a hero of mine.


79 posted on 10/19/2006 6:29:49 PM PDT by jaycee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: familyop
photocopies of illegally obtained "evidence" are 100% valueless.

Are you that stupid?

Do you think this is admissible? If so you are a complete moron. If it's not admissible then it doesn't exist. I can photocopy a police report where you bugger the Queen of England and post it on the web. Should we all believe that?

This is not rocket science folks. I'm beginning to think that I'm involved with Al Gores chromosome deficient morons.

Think! This is simple. I don't care what you think about this. I don't care what you believe about this. I care what you can prove about this. TMZ, "leaked documents" and other fantasies are 100% worthless. Do you get it?
80 posted on 10/19/2006 6:32:57 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok
Actually, I really do like Mel Gibson and his work.

I respect the man enough to accept the PUBLIC APOLOGY he gave for his statements.

81 posted on 10/19/2006 6:34:04 PM PDT by Wormwood (Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter because nobody listens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok; TommyDale; Wormwood
"Who wrote it? Who released it? Was it legal for them to do that? If they broke the law in releasing it, what value does it have? If they released it without approval then they broke a much bigger law than Gibson is alleged to have broken, so who will you believe? Who will a jury believe?"

"Those really are simple questions."

Yes, those are really simple questions. No one has challenged the authenticity or handwriting on the report, as far as I know. I've worked where issuing copies of police reports was legal and even compulsory (so people could get them before the mafia messed with them, for one).

Again, as stated earlier, I'm not an attorney...

"four pages of the original report prepared by the arresting officer in the case" (TMZ)
http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/gibson_wm_docs_072806.pdf
82 posted on 10/19/2006 6:38:30 PM PDT by familyop (Roma est perdita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok
"Now I'm beginning to question what the agenda is of those who are so invested in proving that Mel Gibson is "the son of Satan." Might there be a Moby in the mix? Maybe a Pelosi warrior? It's clear that some in the DBM are serving that agenda. Are folks here? What is the motive of those who are so anxious to trash someone without verifiable proof? Could it be political? Could it be associated with trying to trash the Christian voters, particularly those associated with embracing Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ? Particularly in the two and one half weeks before the election? Enguiring minds want to know. What, pray tell, is your motivation here?

Is that you, Moby?
"

LOL! [Note to myself to avoid hiring this person to represent me.]
83 posted on 10/19/2006 6:43:29 PM PDT by familyop (Roma est perdita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok
Provide something, anything, that can be taken into a court of law. What is so difficult about that concept? Or don't you believe in the rule of law?

ps. The irony of seeing this statement on Free Republic (a website which was essentially founded on the murder of Vince Foster and the rape of Juanita Brodrick) to be absolutely delicious.

84 posted on 10/19/2006 6:45:33 PM PDT by Wormwood (Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter because nobody listens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok
"Are you that stupid? . . . If so you are a complete moron."

Are you a lawyer east of Wyoming or on the west coast? If so, I've seen where you're coming from and why you're making arguments like that.
85 posted on 10/19/2006 6:47:55 PM PDT by familyop (Roma est perdita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: unspun
How could this movie not portray the Spanish invaders darkly?

Because it takes place before 1492.

86 posted on 10/19/2006 6:48:24 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
Since Mel Gibson made it a point to apologize for saying it, he likely said it, wouldn't you think? Why apologize for something you DIDN'T say?

Here you go, here's the full text of what Mel Gibson has said about this.

Mel Gibson's apology: full text
Statement released by Mel Gibson on August 1 over his tirade during drink-driving arrest

"There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark. I want to apologise specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested on a DUI charge.

"I am a public person, and when I say something, either articulated and thought out, or blurted out in a moment of insanity, my words carry weight in the public arena. As a result, I must assume personal responsibility for my words and apologise directly to those who have been hurt and offended by those words.

"The tenets of what I profess to believe necessitate that I exercise charity and tolerance as a way of life. Every human being is God’s child, and if I wish to honour my God I have to honour his children. But please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith.

"I’m not just asking for forgiveness. I would like to take it one step further, and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one-on-one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing.

"I have begun an ongoing program of recovery and what I am now realising is that I cannot do it alone. I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display, and I am asking the Jewish community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery.

"Again, I am reaching out to the Jewish community for its help. I know there will be many in that community who will want nothing to do with me, and that would be understandable. But I pray that that door is not forever closed.

"This is not about a film. Nor is it about artistic license. This is about real life and recognising the consequences hurtful words can have. It’s about existing in harmony in a world that seems to have gone mad.

So, where did he admit to saying "Jews are to blame" ?  That's what this is about, after all.

Do you want to take this to a court of law?  Based on the available evidence, you'll lose.  Big time.  If you don't know that then you are really, really naive.

Again, I'm not talking about "did he or didn't he."  I want to know what is really provable or actionable in a court.  Anything else is almost certainly politically/religiously motivated and is part of an agenda, and for 90% of those pushing that agenda it is as a service to the Jihadis.  After all, Mel Gibson made that hugely successful movie about Jesus, therefore he must be destroyed!  Personally I think this has been blown way out of proportion by those who have an agenda far removed from truth or honor.  I am 100% unwilling to accept ignorant "I heard " or "I read" kinds of posts.  So far that's all I'm getting. That and a very limited number of links to totally BS rumor or "secret info" sites.  If he's guilty I want to know what he's guilty of and I want to see the evidence because it is absolutely without question (references upon request, though I doubt anyone has the guts to ask) that most of the crap so far is motivated by folks motivated by someone other than God.

 

87 posted on 10/19/2006 6:56:33 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Are you a lawyer east of Wyoming or on the west coast? If so, I've seen where you're coming from and why you're making arguments like that.

Wow, that is close to the most incoherent, most valueless and dumbest statement I've ever seen on FR.

And the reference to "Wyoming or on the west coast" couldn't be a more evident tag for a raving  Dhimmicrat plant if I've ever seen one.

Moby, is that you?

What a clintonoid bigot!

All of the BS is dropped in this post.

Alert, anyone who has ever been involved in a post with familyop should carefully check what was said to them or what they said.  Clearly it is part of the MoveOn.ORG opposition research DB.

How's that for a response to a mindless hate filled post by you?

88 posted on 10/19/2006 7:06:20 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Tell ya what. Let's all get stinkin' drunk, hit the road, get arrested by the police, and tape record what we say to them....

Tell ya what...I've been drunk on occasion, but never ever close to blathering what Gibson did - his soul was exposed. Screw 'im.

89 posted on 10/19/2006 7:10:35 PM PDT by ErnBatavia (Meep Meep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
The irony of seeing this statement on Free Republic (a website which was essentially founded on the murder of Vince Foster and the rape of Juanita Brodrick) to be absolutely delicious.

I have one word for you. (notice what is in the bold text)

It will probably be pulled by the admin mods, but so be it.

Based on that post you are an obvious Troll.  More than that, for having posted that, you are really, really, dumb!

90 posted on 10/19/2006 7:10:54 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
"Why do I suspect that even this will fail to make an impression on certain posters?"

...because it involves a celebrity and his fringe religious sect, I suppose.

"The fact that Gibson hasn't hauled TMZ (and/or the police officers in question) into court on libel/defamation seems much more relevent than the hysterical denials on this thread."

Yep. ...seems that it would be difficult for him to do that after admitting guilt, too. But moments of honesty do help in more important ways.

Jews in Hollywood give Gibson the silent treatment

By Andy Goldberg Aug 3, 2006, 2:47 GMT
Deutsche Presse-Agentur by way of Monsters and Critics

"'I hate what he said, and so does he,' said Jeff Berg chairman of International Creative Management which manages Gibson's career. 'We're not going to back away from him in a moment of need. Our goal is to help him, not judge him.'"
91 posted on 10/19/2006 7:11:45 PM PDT by familyop (Roma est perdita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

The Juanita Broaddrick story didn't break until November 1998. Free Republic had exsisted years before that. You don't know what the heck you're talking about.


92 posted on 10/19/2006 7:13:18 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia
Tell ya what...I've been drunk on occasion, but never ever close to blathering what Gibson did - his soul was exposed. Screw 'im.

Yes, you and Mel are so similar that when you each get drunk, you are both either very tight lipped, or, on ocassion, you amazingly reveal the honesty of your innermost beings.

Why, it's a wonder that preachers don't get drunk before sermons, so they can reveal more fully what is in their hearts.

Or, just before that heart-to-heart talk with your children before things like college decisions, getting married, etc., get drunk, so you can make sure you express the truth otherwise hindered in your soul.

93 posted on 10/19/2006 7:17:46 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
Sorry, I was wrong. It was even later than Nov. '98.

In November 1998, Juanita Broaddrick gave an interview to Dateline NBC. The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Bill Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978 during his first campaign for the governorship of Arkansas.

94 posted on 10/19/2006 7:19:31 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Calm down.

My point was Freepers (myself included) have PROVEN ourselves able to draw conslusions based on slimmer evidence than that piled against Gibson.

That's because the court of public opinion doesn't have the same evidentiary requirements as a court of law.

95 posted on 10/19/2006 7:19:44 PM PDT by Wormwood (Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter because nobody listens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia

Paraphrased: "Jews are responsible for all wars on Earth."

Wow, it's a wonder that an otherwise sensible man, who testifies of belief in Christ, really and truly thinks, even though when he is sober, he becomes sensible again.

Huh.


96 posted on 10/19/2006 7:20:41 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
In November 1998, Juanita Broaddrick gave an interview to Dateline NBC. The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Bill Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978 during his first campaign for the governorship of Arkansas.

And BTW, it's too bad she wasn't drunk at the time.

Apparently so many of us Americans would have so much more grounds to believe she was telling what was truly in her heart at the time... ;-)

97 posted on 10/19/2006 7:23:01 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
Calm down? I'm very calm, I was just calling you on your misprpresentation of the original purpose of Free Republic.

ps. The irony of seeing this statement on Free Republic (a website which was essentially founded on the murder of Vince Foster and the rape of Juanita Brodrick) to be absolutely delicious.

98 posted on 10/19/2006 7:23:35 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Twinkie
I see an unintended parallel.....how many unborn children were "sacrificed" to the blood thirsty god of "self" this year?
God has spoken through an ass before. Nothing new here.
99 posted on 10/19/2006 7:25:04 PM PDT by Uriah_lost (M.I.E. Mainer In Exile I'll come back when the Massholes go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood; Phsstpok
Phsstpok wrote:
"are you that dumb?"

Phsstpok wrote:
"Might there be a Moby in the mix?"

Phsstpok wrote:
"Maybe a Pelosi warrior?"

Phsstpok wrote:
"It's clear that some in the DBM are serving that agenda. Are folks here?" [DBM?]

Phsstpok wrote:
"trying to trash the Christian voters"

Phsstpok wrote:
"Is that you, Moby?"

Phsstpok wrote:
"Are you that stupid?"

Phsstpok wrote:
"...you are a complete moron."

Phsstpok wrote:
"...where you bugger the Queen of England"

Phsstpok wrote:
"...I'm involved with Al Gores chromosome deficient morons."

Phsstpok wrote:
"...a raving Dhimmicrat plant if I've ever seen one."

Phsstpok wrote:
"Moby, is that you?"

Phsstpok wrote:
"What a clintonoid bigot!"

Phsstpok wrote:
"Alert, anyone who has ever been involved in a post with familyop should carefully check what was said to them or what they said. Clearly it is part of the MoveOn.ORG opposition research DB."

Phsstpok wrote:
"...you are an obvious Troll. More than that, for having posted that, you are really, really, dumb!"

So, Wormwood, what do you think of celebrity threads? I'm going back to sharing defense information stuff with my fellow "neo-cons." We're plotting and scheming to influence a regime change in Iran to steal attention away from Mel, you know.
100 posted on 10/19/2006 7:43:39 PM PDT by familyop ("The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews." --President John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-141 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