Mel Gibson and the ADL

[Davev]

Originally Posted by Tony&Cheri

I will defend her right to act like a horse's patootie

She kinda resembles a horse as well..

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Tony&Cheri

Interesting comparing Coulter and Moore. Opposite ends of the political spectrum but similar in tactics. I was really upset by Moore's filmed confrontation with Charelton Heston . To gain access to Heston's home under less than honest circumstances and then to ask this elderly man to accept blame for the Columbine shootings (Heston being then Prez of the NRA) was pretty low. Exactly the kind of behavior we should all condem, regardless of left or right. The same for Coulter and her attacks on the 9-11 widows. Despicable.

BTW I didn't say Coulter was hot. I said she was prettier than a Chimpanzie. However I am willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.

Coulter did not attack the 9/11 widows. If you read the entire piece, you will see that the "attacks" were taken out of context. She has some one liners that I will disassociate myself from, in a minute. When it came to the 9/11 widows group, she has a valid point, IMHO.

[sunrlb]

Originally Posted by MargaritaLupita

"I don't think I want to see any more Mel Gibson movies," Barbara Walters said Monday on the ABC talk show "The View." ABC is owned by Disney, which was in the early stages of planning the marketing for Gibson's next film "Apocalypto."
First BaBa WaWa is bailing on Mel, than I read this Sugar tits remark. The only way I will get back on the Mel band wagon is if he gos on The View, apologize to the Jewish community and call BaBa "Sugar tits"

OMG LOL now that would be worth watch the View for.

[Davev]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Coulter did not attack the 9/11 widows. If you read the entire piece, you will see that the "attacks" were taken out of context.

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" Ann Coulter
Do tell how this is "out of context"..

[MargaritaLupita]

Originally Posted by Tony&Cheri

(BTW I didn't say Coulter was hot. I said she was prettier than a Chimpanzie. However I am willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.

If you drink like Mel.......they both look good

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Davev

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" Ann Coulter
Do tell how this is "out of context"..

That line is nasty, I agree. I don't agree with her lack of decorum, although she makes some very valid points when it comes to that 9/11 widows group, and the celebrity of victimhood, overall. One of her points being that if you attack the politics of the victim, you are painted as attacking the victim. I think that has been shown to be true.

[Shredman]

Originally Posted by MargaritaLupita

If you drink like Mel.......they both look good

Now which one is Ann, er, sugar tits?

[Tony&Cheri]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Coulter did not attack the 9/11 widows. If you read the entire piece, you will see that the "attacks" were taken out of context. She has some one liners that I will disassociate myself from, in a minute. When it came to the 9/11 widows group, she has a valid point, IMHO.

Disagree. The "context" was that the widows had used the status of having had husbands die in 9-11 to support a political candidate, John Kerry. My response is even if true so what? If anyone has used 9-11 for political purposes it is the right. That arguement aside, Coulter made several comments which whether taken in context or not turn the stomach, i.e. the widows were using their husbands deaths to gain fame and fourtune, how do we know these women ("harpies" I believe was one term ) were not going to be divorced etc. I am shocked that you would not condem this as a personal attack. This clearly shows my problem with many conservatives. Even when a conservative is obviously wrong, out of control or just plain stupid, members on the right cannot bring themselves to voice condemnation. There is all to often a willingness to explain, i.e. she/he was taken out of context, or she/he has been correct a lot of the time etc. Come on! We are past time to "diassociate" ourselves from idiots of either party. Bulls*t is Bulls*t no matter what side of the aisle it comes form It is time for rational people to condem these looneytunes and point out when the Emporer or Empress has no clothes. ("the chair recognizes the esteemed Senator from Pennsylvania").

BTW: are we officially off topic yet?

[Shredman]

Originally Posted by Tony&Cheri

This clearly shows my problem with many conservatives. Even when a conservative is obviously wrong, out of control or just plain stupid, members on the right cannot bring themselves to voice condemnation. There is all to often a willingness to explain, i.e. she/he was taken out of context, or she/he has been correct a lot of the time etc. Come on! We are past time to "diassociate" ourselves from idiots of either party. Bulls*t is Bulls*t no matter what side of the aisle it comes form It is time for rational people to condem these looneytunes and point out when the Emporer or Empress has no clothes. ("the chair recognizes the esteemed Senator from Pennsylvania").
BTW: are we officially off topic yet?

Members of the right can not voice condemnation against conservative nuts? I thought you would be above simplistic generalization like that. I give you Pat Buchanon. Certifiable nut. Certifiable conservative. Roundly mocked by the right. Now tell me how vocal the liberals are in criticism of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Can't do it can they? Is it because no matter how nutty they are, any dissenters will be called racist?

I don't think we are off topic yet. My point of raising the topic was to discuss whether the ADA stiffles debate by vilifying dissenters. I think that ties perfectly with any manner of rhetorical means to avoid culpability for one's actions.

[Tommygurl]

Originally Posted by Shredman

Members of the right can not voice condemnation against conservative nuts? I thought you would be above simplistic generalization like that. I give you Pat Buchanon. Certifyable nut. Certifyable conservative. Roundly mocked by the right.

I don't think we are off topic yet. My point of raising the topic was to discuss whether the ADA stiffles debate by vilifying dissenters. I think that ties perfectly with any manner of rhetorical means to avoid culpability for one's actions.

I have no idea what this means....???

However for the record Lethal Weapon 1 is Mels best movie.........JMHO

[Tony&Cheri]

Originally Posted by Shredman

Members of the right can not voice condemnation against conservative nuts? I thought you would be above simplistic generalization like that. I give you Pat Buchanon. Certifiable nut. Certifiable conservative. Roundly mocked by the right. Now tell me how vocal the liberals are in criticism of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Can't do it can they? Is it because no matter how nutty they are, any dissenters will be called racist?

I don't think we are off topic yet. My point of raising the topic was to discuss whether the ADA stiffles debate by vilifying dissenters. I think that ties perfectly with any manner of rhetorical means to avoid culpability for one's actions.

OUCH! I hate it when you stick me where it hurts! Ok so maybe the liberals can be just as blind. That still doesn't make Ms. Coulter's crap any more acceptable, does it?

And I thought the topic was whether Mel's substance abuse problems would delay production on Lethal Weapon 28. Or was I mistaken?

[Shredman]

Originally Posted by Tony&Cheri

OUCH! I hate it when you stick me where it hurts! Ok so maybe the liberals can be just as blind. That still doesn't make Ms. Coulter's crap any more acceptable, does it?
And I thought the topic was whether Mel's substance abuse problems would delay production on Lethal Weapon 28. Or was I mistaken?

Bad manners are bad manners.

Lethal Weapon 28, didn't that come out in 04?

[Mindbender]

I'd rather he apologised for the historical bull in 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot'.

He was sober and had no excuse.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Tony&Cheri

Disagree. The "context" was that the widows had used the status of having had husbands die in 9-11 to support a political candidate, John Kerry. My response is even if true so what? If anyone has used 9-11 for political purposes it is the right. That arguement aside, Coulter made several comments which whether taken in context or not turn the stomach, i.e. the widows were using their husbands deaths to gain fame and fourtune, how do we know these women ("harpies" I believe was one term ) were not going to be divorced etc. I am shocked that you would not condem this as a personal attack. This clearly shows my problem with many conservatives. Even when a conservative is obviously wrong, out of control or just plain stupid, members on the right cannot bring themselves to voice condemnation. There is all to often a willingness to explain, i.e. she/he was taken out of context, or she/he has been correct a lot of the time etc. Come on! We are past time to "diassociate" ourselves from idiots of either party. Bulls*t is Bulls*t no matter what side of the aisle it comes form It is time for rational people to condem these looneytunes and point out when the Emporer or Empress has no clothes. ("the chair recognizes the esteemed Senator from Pennsylvania").

BTW: are we officially off topic yet?

Disagree, but only to some extent. You are correct in your statement that BS is BS.

Where we disagree is with the context. Her point was that these 5 widows were starting to make a career (they not only commented on the Presidential race, but also made appearances in support of gay marriages, stem cell research, etc.) based on the deaths of their husbands. They were, in essence, using their husbands' deaths as a stepping stone into the political arena, not unlike Cindy Sheehan and her son. When questioned on their expertise in these matters (a valid question, I might add), their defenders instantly claimed that these women were beyond reproach, because of the tragedy they had sufferred. Ann Coulter claimed that the tragedy was not the sole proprietary of these 5 women. It was a national tragedy, and belonged to all Americans. Her point on the "divorce" was that if these women were going to base their newfound careers (and that is what they do, full time) on their tragedies, the public had a right to ask questions. Now, the question she used as an example goes beyond the pale, I agree. However, the idea is right on. If you enter the world of politics, you are fair game, tragedy or not.

Tony, Jack Murtha called our soldiers "cold-blooded killers." Is that not BS? Do you toss him and his ideas out the window based on that quote (and a few others, I might add)? No, of course not. So, we call BS where we see BS. It doesn't mean every word that comes out of their mouth or pen, after that, is BS.

[Tony&Cheri]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Her point was that these 5 widows were starting to make a career (they not only commented on the Presidential race, but also made appearances in support of gay marriages, stem cell research, etc.) based on the deaths of their husbands. They were, in essence, using their husbands' deaths as a stepping stone into the political arena, not unlike Cindy Sheehan and her son. When questioned on their expertise in these matters (a valid question, I might add), their defenders instantly claimed that these women were beyond reproach, because of the tragedy they had sufferred. Ann Coulter claimed that the tragedy was not the sole proprietary of these 5 women. It was a national tragedy, and belonged to all Americans. Her point on the "divorce" was that if these women were going to base their newfound careers (and that is what they do, full time) on their tragedies, the public had a right to ask questions. Now, the question she used as an example goes beyond the pale, I agree. However, the idea is right on. If you enter the world of politics, you are fair game, tragedy or not.

Tony, Jack Murtha called our soldiers "cold-blooded killers." Is that not BS? Do you toss him and his ideas out the window based on that quote (and a few others, I might add)? No, of course not. So, we call BS where we see BS. It doesn't mean every word that comes out of their mouth or pen, after that, is BS.

No common ground here I am afraid. The political activities of the 9-11 widows were as far as I know limited to exercising their first amendment rights. That is not a career move..if it was, you and I would have job security . They were not running for office, they were expressing opinions.Their opinions can be attacked, just as anyone's can. When some hollywood star suddenly thinks they have something to say because they are good at pretending on the big screen we, the public can question their opinions as invalid. But we don't (if we have had any of what a good friend of mine would call "home training") make personal attacks. That is what Ms. Coulter did. And truly do you believe for one second that her motivation was anything other than attempting to create a publicity firestorm to promote her book? I do not. Ann Coulter does not have the "right" to question the status of the marriages of these women. Her actions and words are crude, cruel, unnecessary and do not deserve the title of "right" in ANY sense of the word. Can you imagine this language in the mouth of a Bill Buckley or a Ronald Regan? I can not. Last but not least, please do not use the term "fair game" with regards to the likes of Ann Coulter. She understands neither the rules of the game nor the concept of "fair".

a quick edit: Forgot about Murtha. Of course a condemnation of all American soldiers for the possible criminal acts of a few is completly B.S. and should be widely condemned. However, note the difference. Murtha is an elected officail while the widows are not. I still can't believe you would condone Coulter's behavior, even a little.

See? This is why I never put my tongue in your ear (referencing another thread).