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

[Trippin]

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

[Artist]

"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.

[nopardons]

Goodbye LIBERAL. This is a CONSERVATIVE FORUM and DU is thata way.........................>

[nopardons]

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

[nopardons]

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

[stands2reason]

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

[A Jovial Cad]

"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.

[stands2reason]

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

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

[Happygal]

ARGH!

[nopardons]

It sure has been and why the Hollywood LIBERAL/B> thinks he/she belongs here,is beyond me.

[Seajay]

Res Ipse Loquitor ...

[Mase]

"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.

[NYC GOP Chick]

--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...

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

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.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

You tellin' me, the Apostles weren't from Brooklyn?(!)

I believe I've just had a religious epiphany.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

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

[A Jovial Cad]

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

[nopardons]

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

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

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.)