Posted on 07/31/2006 12:29:38 PM PDT by veronica
Edited on 07/31/2006 1:43:28 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I was just in the middle of writing a long and tedious essay, about how to tell a real anti-Semite from a person who too-loudly rejects the charge of anti-Semitism, when a near-perfect real-life example came to hand. That bad actor and worse director Mel Gibson, pulled over for the alleged offense of speeding and the further alleged offense of speeding under the influence, decided that he needed to demand of the arresting officer whether he was or was not Jewish and that he furthermore needed to impart the information that all the world's wars are begun by those of Semitic extraction.
Call me thin-skinned if you must, but I think that this qualifies. I also think that the difference between the blood-alcohol levels—and indeed the speed limits—that occasioned the booking are insufficient to explain the expletives (as Gibson has since claimed in a typically self-pitying and verbose statement put out by his publicist). One does not abruptly decide, between the first and second vodka, or the ticks of the indicator of velocity, that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are valid after all.
There's a lot to dislike about Gibson. He is given to furious tirades against homosexuals of the sort that make one wonder if he has some kind of subliminal or "unaddressed" problem. His vulgar and nasty movies, which also feature this prejudice, are additionally replete with the cheapest caricatures of the English.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS attacked Mother Teresa, not Mel.
I asked a question, genius. Try to be an adult.
Perhaps.
Still thought his acting was good in both.
It's particularly amusing coming from someone who could find anti-Catholic bias in a dial tone or a cloud formation.
Most of these folks would consider these tactics monstrous when used by the Brits against American insurgents or by the Union against Confederates, but just fine when used by Americans against Iraqis (or Vietnamese, or really against anybody fighting us).
They thus show that they do not object to the tactics as such, only to their use against their own side. I believe this is commonly known as hypocrisy.
I believe that when you're drunk, the feelings you suppress are released. That's why there are some drunks who will tell you how much they love you and others who will beat the crap out of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whiskey doesn't talk, it merely silences the pretender.
My point is that drunks say all kinds of stupid crap and don't mean a word of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sometimes it is the underlying attitude revealed by the stupid crap that is important. You could ask a person to make up the most outrageous lie he could think of and it would reveal a lot about the person if you have any ability to pick up the clues. Of course there are those who will believe whatever they choose to believe about a person regardless of the most blatant evidence to the contrary.
However, some here will insist to their dying breath that one means all one says while under the influence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I certainly don't believe that but I do believe that a drunk has a lot more trouble concealing his true attitude about certain things than a sober person does. Even an obvious lie told by a drunk can reveal a lot about the person if it is the sort of lie that he would never have told while sober. I have seen a lot of drunks, some of them just lose coordination, slur speech, stagger but their basic character seems unchanged while some seem to turn into a totally different and unrecognizable character. Usually the change is much for the worse but in some cases I have known people who were more likable drunk than when sober.
Just as there are those who will believe whatever they choose to believe about a person based upon a short article written by a third party and never having spoken with the person even once.
Since I told the truth and you told a scurrilous lie, you should worry less about where I'm going and more about where you're going.
Tell all the losers at McCain08 I said hi.
Your truth is in only your mind, sir, just as your belief in your debating prowess. And, because you cannot seem to engage in a forum without framing your argument with an insulting "bastard" name-calling, you can consider this to be my last reply to any of your postings.
Oh, so you blame the victim. Shows you're a very enlightened person. Yes, my man, my grandparents killed Jesus so they deserved being beaten. They had it coming to them. Boy, are you a dope! So much for your "religion of love".
The facts of the Bush DWI are precisely as I presented them.
Your claim that the DWI was covered up is an outright lie.
And "bastard" is one of the milder terms applicable to persons who spread lies about their country's Commander-In-Chief during wartime.
You don't hang around Jewish alchoholics , apparently. That's a shame; they're really a lot of fun.
He has been eminently successful in pulling off the remarkable feat of being slobbered over politically by adherents of both the Left and the Right.
He's a drinker himself, anti-Christian, and a rather lapsed socialist, having enjoyed the bountiful fruits of the heartless capitalistic system in America where he's been embedded for years.
Leni
Not in the slightest.
Does it surprise me that a dishonest leftist website twists the facts?
Not at all.
Let's review: your leftist source alleges that the President lied about being arrested.
The fact is that the President was not arrested. He voluntarily accompanied the officer to the police station. He was not Mirandized, placed under arrest or handcuffed by anyone.
Your leftist source also claims the President lied about pleading guilty in court.
The fact is that the President pled guilty to the offense at the police station by signing the standard document: there was no court adjudication of the DWI. He voluntarily accompanied the officer to the station, signed the paperwork acknowledging his guilt and wrote a check for the fine.
The President appeared in court two years later, not to answer charges or plea, but to make the standard request that his driving privileges be reinstated.
Your leftist source seeks to portray a scenario in which the President was handcuffed at the scene, put in a holding cell, and then hauled into court where he pled guilty before a judge.
However, the facts of the matter are precisely as the President claimed: that he was pulled over, pled guilty at the police station and paid the fine. At no time was he under arrest.
Your source and you are dishonestly trying to create a phony scenario in which the President was arrested and hauled into court and later lied about it.
That is a fiction, a fantasy, a figment of your leftist/RINO/McCainiac imagination.
Don't like to take McCainiac meandog's side, but you should know that "Skeleton's in the Closet" is NOT a leftist wing site. They do numbers on RATS as well as Republicans. And the president was a little evasive about his arrest, after all.
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.