In an national atmosphere of heightened anti-Semitism tragically and violently portrayed here in Seattle, Friday, Mel Gibson added to the fire by spewing profane and anti-Jewish language at cops arresting him in Malibu for drunk driving.
There's a local talk radio connection- both Seattle-based syndicated talker Michael Medved and fellow Mercer Island resident, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, radio host at San Francisco's KSFO were leading national apologists and ran the right-wing Jewish offense for Gibson through the controversies around the launch of his harsh, bloody, Jew-baiting Christian screed-flick, The Passion of The Christ in 2004.
Marketing genius broke attendance records by enticing fundamentalist Christian churches to buy tickets in blocks; rent out entire theaters, and fill them up with evangelicals who usually reject the offerings of Hollywood, especially movies rated R, which this one was because of the gratuitous and bloody torture scenes.
The incredibly successful (more than $611 million gross) cinematic depiction of Christ's last days was widely criticized by many mainline rabbis as anti-Semitic. The portrayal of Jews as manipulative, hook-nosed thugs was considered by many Jews as a suspicious bit of editorializing by Gibson.
Although he's told the media that he regards The Passion as having actually been directed by the Holy Ghost, he otherwise had total artistic control of the production.
Lapin and Medved were among the right-wing Jews shown the film before it was released. When non right-wing Jews such as New York Times critic Frank Rich asked to view it, they were turned away, "thus allowing Mr. Gibson's defenders, in a perfect orchestration of Catch-22," wrote Rich at the time, "to say we were attacking or trying to censor a film we 'haven't seen.'''
(Let us inject here what Gibson (fine Christian gentleman that he is) wants for Frank Rich. Presumably sober at the time, he told the The New Yorker in 2003: ''I want to kill him, I want his intestines on a stick... I want to kill his dog.'')
Lapin, who Rich has described as the "show rabbi of the religious right," called the gruesome, Christian-proselytizing film, "wholesome entertainment that depicts Christianity in a positive light," and castigated other rabbis' protests. "The very public nature of their attack on Gibson," he said, "exposed their real purpose- fundraising."
Of course, this not only questioned the good faith of some very concerned and sincere Jewish leaders, but for those who thrive on such things, it illuminated the money-grubbing stereotype they nurture about Jews.
Even Medved, writing in Christian Today, admitted to a certain discomfort:
For Jews, however, there's a special squirm factor in watching the officials of a long-destroyed Temple, which we still revere as a holy gift from God, behaving in a selfish, officious, and sadistic manner. I might have preferred a movie version of the crucifixion that interpreted the Gospels to place primary blame for the death of Jesus on the Roman authorities.
Despite these doubts, Medved went to bat for the movies against the outcries of other influential Jews. "In more than a half dozen conversations with Gibson," Medved wrote, "I heard him express his passionate desire to avoid hurting the Jewish community or its members. He consistently declares that he always wanted his movie to unite people rather than divide them."
(Apparently neoconservatives like Medved aren't so off-put as we liberals have become when someone tells them they're a "uniter not a divider.")
Medved concluded, with hands across the Testaments, Kumbayaic schmooze that might befit the gooziest of liberals: "A sane perspective on the public reaction to the movie's artistry and message may yet help Gibson achieve his original goal of promoting unity, rather than division, among Christians, Jews, and the rest of humanity. (emphasis added)
He then went on to defend the movie and Mel Gibson all over everywhere and ever since.
There are the uncomfortable facts about Gibson's traditionalist Catholic beliefs. He's built a million dollar church in Malibu to house the off-brand Catholic off-shoot congregation he belongs to, which is not recognized by the Greater Los Angeles Catholic Churches.
They seek to revive the church from the reforms of the last 300 years, particularly the evils of the reforming Vatican II. Mass is still in Latin, the modern Church, the pope in Rome, the 20th and the 21st centuries are the enemies.
In a famous 2003 New York Times Magazine piece, Christopher Noxon wrote: "A friend of the Gibson family has his own ideas about how traditionalist thought is informing 'The Passion.' Gary Giuffré, a founder of the traditionalist St. Jude Chapel in Texas, says ... 'It will graphically portray the intense suffering of Christ, perhaps as no film has done before.''Most important, he says, the film will lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs- which some traditionalists believe means the Jewish authorities who presided over his trial and delivered him to the Romans to be crucified.'" (emphasis added)
Even more troubling is the public ramblings of Gibson' father, well-known anti-Vatican author and activist, Hutton Gibson, 87, who lives near Houston. He's gotten his son's name in the papers more than once for his quaint and dangerous talk.
A Holocaust denier who says it was logistically impossible to burn up six million bodies; he also believes the reforming Vatican II was ''a Masonic plot backed by the Jews,'' He has murky conspiracy theories about Sept 11, and bloviates a lot of other crackpot trivia that usually bottom lines with the Jews and the pope manipulating the world from Rome.
How much of his father's crap Mel Gibson buys into is unknown. He says he doesn't agree with all of it, but the drunken public epithets of last week indicate the poisonous apples may not have fallen all that far from the tree.
Lapin and Medved are glib true believers, so they'll spin their way out or simply not talk about the latest revelations of Mel Gibson's obvious deep-seated anti-preference for the future of their kind. It's a conundrum for religious neoconservatives. On one hand, they want Israel to annihilate the Moslems in Lebanon and label anyone critical of Israel anti-Semitic; on the other, they want to help Mel Gibson for whom they've gone so far to bat for, but now is showing his face as an actual anti-Semite.
Lapin is imperious and probably doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks of his seeming hypocrisy. He's gone out on creaky limbs before for Holocaust deniers- he's even been lauded by such as David Duke. You can read about all that here.
Michael Medved, on the other hand is more mainstream and may feel he has to address this and the questions of others on this. We hope so. It'd be refreshing to see some of Gibson's former apologists demand some answers. His public apologies are a little spare, but we gotta say it- it's cool seeing him nailed up there on a cross of his own construction.
Trouble is, nothing will happen to Gibson. I doubt if he does any jail time.
Posted by: sparky | July 29, 2006 at 07:59 PM
Who cares? his jig is up. He's just another blue collar bigot, holy rolling liar, hypocrite ex-tough guy, Hollywood phoney with a drinking problem.
Posted by: sacristy | July 29, 2006 at 10:33 PM
He was very careful to word his alcoholism as a disease. I wonder if he charitably termed it so before he was caught. Somehoe, I don't think so. He's always been so self-righteous.
And 87 in a 45 mph zone? What an SOB!
Posted by: joanie | July 29, 2006 at 11:12 PM
Gibson and Hak
Same thing.
I admit it.
We killed Jesus because we were jealous that he wanted to give our G-d to the goyem.
To build Israel, we poisoned the water with evil viruses that make Palestinian women have too many children to feed.
On Pesach we go to a special section of the QFC where we can buy frozen Christian blood harvested only form blond virgins.
We control the world. I am personally responsible for Capital Hill.
Posted by: Stephen Schwartz | July 30, 2006 at 08:14 AM
Hey Schwartz, Do you think Jewish blood-sucking is funny?
Posted by: sarge | July 30, 2006 at 11:59 AM
Well what do you want Lapim and Medved to say? Of course they will come out and condemn Gibson's anti-semitism. The controversy was about the film "The Passion" and whether Gibson should have tried to stock it with characters who would have represented Jews of year AD 30 Jerusalem or with more camera-ready mixed-blood Jews of 2000 years down the diaspora. In any case such a puerile, "gotacha-type" taunt and after the attempted mass murder of Jews in Seattle last Friday is disgusting. Where your taunts are there will be your heart also.
Again, I am amazed at your pick of enemies: radio hosts, Jesus, softballs one and all. There are fundamentalists out there who really do want to kill gays and other children of the Enlightenment...but, but, then that would require you to pull out the pacifier of Bush-hatred and that's not going to happen so...
Posted by: Das | July 30, 2006 at 05:49 PM
thank you Das. that needed to be said. Nobody holds this jerk's feet to the fire. He's an arrogant ultra-lib whose writing borders on treason half the time. And he thinks he's so cute. Unfortunately, too many people come here to encourage him.
Posted by: sara sue | July 30, 2006 at 06:54 PM
Didn't see the film so am curious about your hooked-noses response:
Am I to take it that all the Jews in the film had historically-correct "profiles?" It wasn't just certain characters? Jesus, the Jew, and the women were equally true to historic standards of nose expectations?
Really, I'm not sure. Tell me, please. I am ignorant on this subject. Perhaps the women weren't Jews . . .
As for Bush hatred, I confess to it. I don't know how you can separate Bush's policies or lack of them and his race to war, killing, and support of torture and think the current situation isn't a product of his management style and leadership. You seem to denigrate Michael's writing and suggest he should be doing something different.
What should he be doing? What are you doing to correct the divisiveness and hate currently supported by the conservative agenda?
You have to remember, Bush is the decider. We are living the results of his decisions.
Posted by: joanie | July 30, 2006 at 07:23 PM
joanie asked "What should he be doing?"
Surrender all the "conservatives are hate mongers" mantras and embrace president Bush as a loving man a supporter of freedom and a warrior against nihilistic jihad terror.
Well, you asked.
It is hard to talk to leftists because the exchange of ideas gets lost in tripwires of purity. You are so ready to shout, "you are a hater!" "You are a racist!"
I would say that there are those who rush to war, whose policies aim at deliberate targeting of innocents and who believe in torture. And George Bush ain't it, sister.
Posted by: Das | July 30, 2006 at 09:08 PM
Das, you gotta go back and read my last post on the other thread 'cause, honey, that justs what he is. . . I'm sorry.
Posted by: joanie | July 30, 2006 at 09:13 PM
Das, I think I misread this a bit. . . you say there are those who rush to war . . . but Bush isn't it?
How did you come to that conclusion?
Posted by: joanie | July 30, 2006 at 09:15 PM
Das-Ron-ExDem-etc. etc. etc.
same same same....
Posted by: sparky | July 30, 2006 at 09:20 PM
I just don't get how they can be so totally deluded. It is just beyond me!
I mean 700 signing statements shouting to the US citizens that you don't have to follow the laws. Continuing to support torture of people who may or may not be guilty of anything . . . in fact, it was in the paper that Bush is reconsidering or reopening Guantanamo. I'll have to go looking for it. Everything has to be his way or the highway. And they think he's not responsible?
Unbelievable!
Posted by: joanie | July 30, 2006 at 09:31 PM
Joanie its because we are angry liberals who hate america and want the terrorists to win.
Posted by: sparky | July 30, 2006 at 09:52 PM
I have been told that anything that is said while drunk was thought out while sober.
In Gibson's case, let's add "Like Father, Like Son," and "The Nazi Never Falls Far from the Tree."
Posted by: Ted Smith | July 31, 2006 at 06:02 AM
In vino, veritas
Posted by: Dana | July 31, 2006 at 09:16 AM
Actually, from the incident Report (see Slate), it appears to be "In Tequilla, veritas"
Posted by: JDB | July 31, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Michael Medved, another pathetic "poltroon of the afternoon" has gone into deep denial mode as he blithely and glibly attempts to say that even though Mel Gibson said despicable, Jew-hating things last week, it still doesn't mean that P of the C was anti-semitic. Now with this new, enlightening and revealing info about Gibson, anyone being honest with themselves would admit that the questionable scenes in the movie that offended Jews, found their away into the film due to the director's antisemitism. But not Medved, who by the way is a disgrace to his religion, with his hateful, vile comments against homeless people and numerous other offenses. Like a former friend who proves himself lacking the moral courage to apologize to you over something that you deserve one for, Medved is simply too small a man to admit that he was wrong about Gibson AND the movie. Medved, you're a poltroon, and a disgrace.
Posted by: Tommy008 | July 31, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Mel Gibson States"I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything said" Now seriously, How many of you have drank to the extent of saying things that you do not really believe to be true in your heart, things that you regret later on? I imagine more than 80% of all drinkers have had that experience, and I believe more than 90% of NON drinkers have made remarks or comments to someone that they later regret and do not full heartedly believe is true. How many of you have said "I HATE YOU" to your mother or father, then later feel guilty because your anger was in control, not you? Alcohol was in control, you cannot blame the person who said these things when they were not in their right state of mind at the time.
Posted by: David | July 31, 2006 at 05:20 PM
It would be another matter if Gibson had a different history, but in this case I think he was just saying what he really thought.
Posted by: lukobe | July 31, 2006 at 05:39 PM
Alcohol removes your inhibitions...what you would normally stop yourself from doing sometimes comes forward. Im not sure there is any evidence that someone will act totally out of character due to drunkeness. Anyone know?
Posted by: sparky | July 31, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Medved claims that badgering by Jewish leaders during the release of Passion of The Christ understandably engendered anti semitic feelings in Mel Gibson.
Posted by: umo | July 31, 2006 at 06:48 PM
Medved claims that badgering by Jewish leaders during the release of Passion of The Christ understandably engendered anti semitic feelings in Mel Gibson.
Posted by: umo | July 31, 2006 at 06:49 PM
Alcohol removes your inhibitions...what you would normally stop yourself from doing sometimes comes forward. Im not sure there is any evidence that someone will act totally out of character due to drunkeness. Anyone know?
Posted by: sparky | July 31, 2006 at 06:49 PM
I can relate to what Mel Gibson is saying. It's stupid and fun to get drunk, it's stupid and fun to make bald assumptions about the world. They easily go hand in hand.
It's an enjoyably wreckless feeling to decide that the world is simple black and white, that all problems are caused by Jews. It takes more smarts and discipline to realize that things have multiple causes, and it's not as rewarding to conclude that because it leaves you with uncertaintly and doubt, which is _not_fun_ if not impossibly hard for many people.
Christians and most religious people who aren't even drunk think the cause of everything is either good, evil or god's will, and even though god is completely invisible they buy into the myth because that drugged up feeling that certainty brings is real.
You can't blame people for relapsing into fake certainty, if not when they're sober then especialy not when they're drunk.
Posted by: Andrew | July 31, 2006 at 07:01 PM
Dave was talking about this exact topic this morning and I almost called in. I think there is a difference between the emotional controls and intellectuals controls. His dad played tapes for him for years and years and he internalized emotional feelings that are hard to turn off when you realize that those emotions reflect inaccurate and unintelligent thinking.
I'm sure we all have tapes that we play in our heads cause we can't stop them that were internalized when we were kids. We know better now but we are still victims of those feelings . . .
So, I give him some space on this. His apology was pretty deep and not forced . . . he is still victimized by his dad's hatred.
Hey, I'm not a Mel Gibson fan because I'm not a fundamentlist and I don't trust that whole herd thing. But, I can understand the emotions getting the better of the brain in his case. Imagine growing up with that influence - he must work constantly to overcome those feelings.
Even though we are in grown-up bodies, there 's a lot of child in all of us.
Posted by: joanie | July 31, 2006 at 08:35 PM
OT but back at the ranch.......
SEOUL, South Korea — Soldiers from North Korea and South Korea exchanged fire along their border late Monday, but no one was hurt, a South Korean military official said Tuesday.
The incident happened shortly before sunset when North Korean soldiers fired two bullets toward a South Korean guard post in the eastern part of the Demilitarized Zone, said Maj. Kim Tae-hoon of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office.
South Korean soldiers immediately fired back six rounds, Kim said.
He said South Korea doesn't know what prompted the North troops to open fire and the secretive communist country hasn't said anything to the South about it.
The U.N. Military Armistice Commission, which supervises the cease-fire that ended the 1950-53 Korean War, will asked the North on Tuesday for an explanation of the incident.
The fighting ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty, meaning that the two Koreas are still technically in a state of conflict.
Let me see, whom else did we sign a cease fire agreement with...........................
Posted by: Recife | July 31, 2006 at 08:41 PM
O'Reilly actually told it like it is about Gibson on his radio show and did not duck the issue - Gibson is a friend of his. I know the O'Reilly haters will have a tough time with this - that's their problem.
Gibson blew it big time and has lost credibility in the future because of this act. No excuse for this type of poor judgment - this is a let down for those to looked up to him before he did this and he should not have been placed on a pedestal by those who did in the first place.
One parent who called up O'Reilly said that his 10-year old son wondered if the whole world was against Jews because of Gibson's comment. It is a lose-lose situation whenever you degrade a class/race like Gibson did according to Bad Bill. Enuf said.
Posted by: KS | July 31, 2006 at 10:10 PM
I actually enjoyed the Passion. But I did have the sound muted & Slayer's Reign in Blood cranked on a loop
Posted by: Mercifurious | July 31, 2006 at 10:48 PM
This is the question that I just cannot answser: Why when he is pulled over by the cops is the first thing he does is go anti-semite? I mean, if he had been pulled over by an accountant, maybe, but when I think about prejudice, Cop=Jew just doesn't occur to me. Unless something is really twisted in your mind, I just don't see how you suddenly start doing that unless you do that all the time.
And it was interesting listening to Medved today. You would think that having Gibson's prejudice laid so bare, that Medved would at least say that you have to rethink the Passion of the Christ. KS, did O'Reilly go that far?
The strangest thing is that it turns out that South Park got it exactly right.
Posted by: JDB | July 31, 2006 at 10:49 PM
Why does anyone think anybody here sympathizes with Mel Gibson? Bill O'Reilly is hardly the beacon of sensibility here...nobody but his butt buddy in the sheriff's office is making any excuses for him.
And whoever said Mel is a liberal...huh????? Whenever someone does something you dont like, you label them a liberal?
Posted by: sparky | July 31, 2006 at 10:50 PM
"At one point, in the L.A. Sherrif's Lost Hills substation, Gibson was jumping like a monkey. 'I'm not going to hurt you, physically,' he shouted at he arresting officer,'I'm going to fuck you! I'm going to make you lose!'
Posted by: Tommy008 | July 31, 2006 at 11:52 PM
Das bloviates:
Surrender all the "conservatives are hate mongers" mantras and embrace president Bush as a loving man a supporter of freedom and a warrior against nihilistic jihad terror.
Das you ignorant slut.
"A loving man"
How loving was Bush when he laughingly mocked a condemned woman's calls for mercy while on death row? WWJD?
"Supporter of Freedom"
How many "supporters of freedom" openly support the murderous non-democratic dictatorships of Pakistan, Uzbekistan, & Saudi Arabia. WWJD?
"warrior against nihilistic jihad terror"
Yes. Thats why Bush's new man Maliki in Iraq belongs to the wonderfully democratic The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq party. And now we're defending their Shiite death squads? WWJD?
So as you can see Das - when we use the "conservatives are hate-mongers" mantra, it means we have plenty of hollow-pointed data to back that up.
Posted by: mercifurious | August 01, 2006 at 12:03 AM
Rightwing Republican ideologue talkhost Laura Ingraham {The Witch} who once was going steady with George W. Bush, openly yearned tonight, as she has many a night before, for a beau like Tony Blair, who "can speak in full paragraphs". Ingraham, with her critical references to Bush'es er and ums and aws, and poor oratorical skills, tempered by her polite apologetic murmurings, came as close as she dares to calling W. an inarticulate boob.
Posted by: Tommy008 | August 01, 2006 at 12:11 AM
According to news reports read by Bob Van Dyne last night, Mel Gibson was stopped at least two times for speeding on Pacific Coast Highway near his home in the past few years, but was let off without a ticket or DUI test on either occaision. In the second incident, Gibson was so cocky during the stop, that he was still on his cellphone during the whole conversation with the officer. Ugh. Now I know why I never liked him.
Posted by: Tommy008 | August 01, 2006 at 06:12 AM
Hambone Hannity is very sympathetic, providing his own violins with the tone of his voice as he reads Creep Gibson's phony apology. Creep Gibson is trying to spin the thing now by saying he said "insane" things, as if he was so plastered with Tequila he was out of his mind. Only problem is- his blood alcohol wasn't even really that high, just 1.2 or 1.3 Remember 1.0 was the legal limit in this state up to fairly recently. Gibson is sorry that he got caught saying those ugly things, and that's about it. He knows he has to make with some heavy apologies to have a hope of being a part of the Hollywwod community in future.
Posted by: Tommy008 | August 01, 2006 at 12:27 PM
Anyone remember some of Bobby Fischer's "Fucking Jews" rants?
No doubt in my mind Gibson's tirade was at some level sincere.
I see two possible explanations:
1) He's a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions about Jews, a la Bobby Fischer, and his mental illness was aggravated by the otherwise moderate amount of alcohol, or
2) He might have been slightly drunk but also high on something else?? Remember D.C. mayor Marion Berry when he was caught with the crack and the crack ho's, suddenly confessing to a "terrible disease," alcoholism.
Posted by: rodman | August 01, 2006 at 02:03 PM
murcifurious, it is so safe to hate Bush (and Mel) more than jihad terrorists; get a real enemy, babe.
Posted by: Das | August 01, 2006 at 08:28 PM
Das~
Alright slut, once more.
First off, NOBODY here said they "hated" Mel or Bush. Perhaps your hearing wing-nut talk-show-host echos in your feeble head (again).
I DID disagree with your assessment that we all must now Embrace Bush. Does refusing to embrace someone signify hatred?
We DID say that Mel & Bush both hypocrites. This is a disagreable quality that discourages people from Embracing anyone. Go figure.
On the other hand, the fact that you Embrace president Bush as a loving man a supporter of freedom and a warrior against nihilistic jihad terror, means that you support TERROR more than anyone else here.
I don't support Pakistan
(terrorist weapons dealer)
I don't support Saudi Arabia
(huge terrorist funder)
I don't support Uzbekistan
(authoritarian dictatorship)
Bush supports all 3... Do you still embrace him?
(WWJD?)
Posted by: murcifurious | August 01, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Medved and Lapin publicly defend an anti-semite because he donates substantial amounts of MONEY to their organization...how Jewish of them.
Posted by: umo | August 02, 2006 at 04:22 AM
Medved concludes that he has proof P of the C is not anti-semitic because there has been no known case of Jews being beaten up after people come out of theater. Bwahahaahahahaah And this guy considers himself an intellectual? Oh, and he quotes some phony poll where people say they actually feel better about Jews after seeing the film. Apparently in the film the Jews are portrayed as a bunch of evil, hooknosed,, loathsome bastards who are the diabolical toads that conspire to have Jesus killed. Sounds like a great image. I think Medved's poll is just like him- pure bullshit.
Posted by: Tommy008 | August 02, 2006 at 08:45 AM
I know a movie that would be an absolute guarantee to make people hate Jews- a documentary kind of like My Dinner with Andre featuring Michael Medved and Rabbi Lapin taking a long dinner and discussing their views on homeless people, poor people, the civil war, liberals, etc..... bwahahahahaahahahahaha!
Posted by: Tommy008 | August 02, 2006 at 09:00 AM
real nice, umo.
Posted by: lukobe | August 02, 2006 at 12:42 PM
This hour Medved is taking a break from making up rationalizations for Creep Gibson and his movie, and has gone back to his tried and true schtick of having a particular kind of guest or guests on his show where he takes a tone of bemused, smug superiority and barely veiled contempt towards them, as he quizzes them in an attempt to make them seem foolish and inferior. Medved, you truly are a repulsive, vile little man.
Posted by: Tommy008 | August 02, 2006 at 01:18 PM
If one would simply stop the labeling of "conservative" and "liberal," which in this case has little meaning regarding how one interprets Gibson's behavior and pronoucements about P of C, his run-in with the law, or anything else--after his contradictory, dissembling remarks, why would anyone believe anything he says as being reliable? And that is relevant even without considering the variable of his alcoholism, which if it is a "disease," has as one of its major "symptoms," pervasive lying and denial. Fortunately for Gibson, lying is not against the law unless it is done under oath, for which one can be convicted of perjury. At least Gibson was smart enough not to deny that he was drunk.
Posted by: alan | August 03, 2006 at 07:22 AM
Gibson will get a slap on wrist, right? not so fast. According to L.A. superattorney Robert Shapiro, who was on Greta Van Sustern last night, California passed a new law which requires a mandatory 60 days in jail for any drunk driver convicted of going 20 miles per hour above the speed limit. Gibson was going 40 mph above the limit. Can you imagine Creep Gibson in L.A. County Jail with all the gangbangers?bwaahahahahaahahaahaaahahaaha
Posted by: Tommy008 | August 03, 2006 at 10:12 AM
yeah but I dont think he will serve any time. I listened to a lawyer on Olbermann last night and she said he will plead it out, pay a huge fine and probably wont even have to show up in court to do so.
the rules are different for the rich and famous!
Posted by: sparky | August 03, 2006 at 10:23 AM
Medved finally puts it in writing:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-02-gibson-edit_x.htm
Would that he and "conservatives" like him extend this olive branch of forgiveness to everyone who affronts them.
Hannity: Love your book "Deliver Us from Evil." I'm having trouble finding a copy of the prequel: "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have sinned against us."
Posted by: rodman | August 03, 2006 at 02:43 PM
sparky stupidly said:
'Who cares? his jig is up. He's just another blue collar bigot, holy rolling liar, hypocrite ex-tough guy, Hollywood phoney with a drinking problem.'
***his jig is up.*** "Jig"....'Jig" most informed and educated people know that the word 'Jig" is a racial slur against black people. Just like saying 'it's a gyp', another racial slur against gysies people.
Coming from you on this matter only shows, 'Irony is lost on the oblivious.'
PS.. There is 'no vino, veritas', just drunken comments coming from a alcohol soaked brain.
Posted by: a writer | August 03, 2006 at 06:14 PM
His movies suck I'm sure Danny Glover has wrote him off as well and will be helping us to exterminate the republicans soon...
Posted by: Mr B's Boxer Dog | August 03, 2006 at 06:19 PM