I can forgive Mel Gibson for his tacky behavior, and even the hateful things he said. What I can’t ever find it in my heart to forgive him for is Mrs. Soffel and Lethal Weapon 4.
I tried to ignore the contretemps over Mel Gibson’s run-in with the law, but it was like trying to ignore the elephant in the living room.
My friends kept attacking him, and I kept finding myself sort of defending him. It wasn’t that I approved of his conduct, but when I was a younger man, I occasionally got drunk and said really stupid things; usually, as I recall, to young women. I know this to be the case because there’s nothing that some people enjoy more than making your hangover even more painful by reporting verbatim the morning after all the really loutish things you said the night before.
Heck, if in vino veritas were true, you wouldn’t have to use the third degree to make felons confess, you’d merely need to ply them with booze.
Unlike some people who have sprung to Gibson’s defense, I can’t claim to know him. I’ve never met him. Even though by this time, he’s apologized for just about everything but causing Hurricane Katrina, I have no way of knowing what’s really in his heart. I do know that a lot of people condemn the guy because his father, Hutton, is a Holocaust-denier and apparently a bit of a religious nutcase. But I don’t go in for blaming the son for the sins of the father — and neither, I’d imagine, do the untold millions who still love and admire John F. Kennedy.
Some folks who already disliked Mel Gibson for his religious beliefs or because he made The Passion were naturally ready to crucify him, so to speak. They quickly dismissed his intoxication as an excuse for his behavior, although I’m willing to wager that they’ve excused far worse transgressions committed by celebrities who share their politics. I mean, look at all the really dumb stuff that’s come out of the mouths of Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, and Harry Belafonte, and they were all cold sober.
One never knows how much or how little influence a father has on a son. Many people simply assume that Mel is the fruit of a poisoned tree. But how can we know that he doesn’t simply suffer from an inferiority complex because, for all his millions, he knows that his dad fathered 11 kids while Mel conked out after a mere seven? Or perhaps carting around the name Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson for 50 years just got to be too much, and that night, on Pacific Coast Highway, he simply cracked under the strain.
In the old days, I used to interview a great many celebrities. Before meeting them, my biggest concern wasn’t whether they’d make good copy, but whether they’d turn out to be oafs. What if I didn’t like, say, Fred Astaire, Jimmy Stewart, Gene Kelly, and Ginger Rogers? What if they didn’t like me? I ran the risk of having a dozen of my all-time favorite movies ruined forever. That, for me, was the upside of the Gibson affair. I was never a fan.
In conclusion, let me simply say that I can forgive him his tacky behavior, and even the hateful things he said. He’s just an actor, after all. He makes movies, not national policy.
What I can’t ever find it in my heart to forgive him for is Mrs. Soffel and Lethal Weapon 4.
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com
http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
Read more articles by Burt Prelutsky
As a conservative I am deeply saddened by this article. I believe in personal responsibility. Mel Gibson should take responsibility for everything he did. DON'T duck & run behind senseless statements like, "I don't know him…. he is only an actor." I believe in upholding laws. Burt is too soft on crime. Gibson drove drunk while speeding and then confronted our brave police. So basically, Ignore conservative values in this case with Gibson:
1. Forget personal responsibilty
2. Forget laws & order… attack police
3. Duck & run, "I don't know the guy."
4. Racist statements are OK.
I thought this was a forum for Intellectual Conservative not Excuse makers.
Comment by John Wright | August 7, 2006
Mr. Wright, I can understand why you would expect to find some "intellectual" conservatives at this site, for its very name gives you this impression. However, you will find very few, if any, actual intellectual arguments here. What you will find are some fantastic examples of blind ignorance, biased beliefs, black and white thinking, an extreme lack of understanding of Liberals, and ethereal arguments for Conservative thought.
By the way, your "Conservative Values" that you hold dear (and rightly so) are not only ignored in this piece but also by our current "Conservative" Administration.
1. Forget personal responsibilty…..unfulfilled Nat.Guard Duties, Fiscal Irresponsibility throughout business career, "mistake" free Presidency, more vacation time than any other,…….
2. Forget laws & order…Illegal wire-tapping, torture, Illegal War
3. Duck & run…..holding "town" meetings with hand picked participants, resorting to gay marriage and flag burning talking points to spin attention away from Iraq debacle, selling off shares before business goes down the tubes,……
4. Racist statements are OK……….handfulls of Reps and Sens caught saying stupid things, lack of understanding of Islamic peoples.
Since you are so disappointed with this article you must be extremely diappointed with your political brethren that are in charge right now.
Comment by LyonBrave | August 7, 2006
Ahmdo, you should learn to spell before you participate in a written discussion.
And yes, I will fight against Islam as long as its adherents murder civilians,
enslave Christians and Jews, and attack peaceful nations without provocation.
I will never bend my back to your demon moon-god, and I will answer the
sword of Islam with a sword of my own. My country will never be brought under
the caliphate as long as I live.
Comment by Lane Russell | August 7, 2006
Ahmdo & Lane Russel….. Well done. You are both freaks spewing your rant. Try discussions that pertain to topics that are meant to be commented on. This is for Intellectuals. Try MySpace for rants.
Comment by John Wright | August 8, 2006
What kind of "conservative" are you, John? The "Log Cabin" variety? Perhaps you would do us the favor of elucidating a single idea so we can be edified by your eminent intellect? I suspect your conservative credentials may be a bit lacking. Sniping is the easy part. Man up and show you can actually formulate a coherent, rational argument. Lane and Ahmdo believe and are willing to die for their beliefs. It may be there is nothing you think important enough to make the ultimate sacrifice for. If that is the case, come out of the closet and embrace Barney Frank. We don't need another David Brock unsure of his identity lurking around in drag..
Comment by Joseph | August 8, 2006
I agree with the author but would add that all four Lethal Weapon movies stunk. So did the third Mad Max movie. To be honest, although Mel Gibson's movie on William Wallace was very good, his incorrect depictment of the Battle of Stirling Bridge does not show Wallace's terrific military acumen to great advantage.
Comment by Derek Leaberry | August 8, 2006
Joseph, Try reading the article. I am NOT interested in rants by anyone. This is an intellectual conservative site. Name calling, by the way calling me gay because I called these guys freaks for ranting is absolutely horrible. I have read your posts elsewhere & you are above that Joe. I tend to agree with most of you posts but that is way off line. Read my post. Read my conservative values. Sounds like you are being hypocritical here. Is Gibson taking any personal responsibilty? How Catholic is driving drunk and threatening brave police? I would do some soul searching here Joe. Sounds like the Conservative values you uphold is CYA (Cover Your A$$). Defend Gibson using conservative values & redeem yourself. Search deep into your heart and explore your conservative values.
Comment by John Wright | August 8, 2006
Joseph…you say "Sniping is the easy part. Man up and show you can actually formulate a coherent, rational argument."
Formulate a COHERENT, RATIONAL argument you say?? Are these examples of what you mean?
1.) "Nope. If liberals like death so much, in the infernal spirit of “bipartisanship” and “moderation”, I’ll meet them half way. Liberals want to kill babies and old people. O.k., I’ll give them the killing part, in return for satisfying their thirst for blood, I say we kill tree-huggers, porn-stars, and anyone who ever attended a Madonna concert, but that’s my final offer…"
2.) "I think the only thing more contemptible than a true liberal (One who actually believes the nonsense he utters) is a rich Republican libertine. The only reason liberals are listened to is there’s a small chance they’re looking out for the little guy’s economic status (i.e. the poor). As we know, most liberals race or class-bait, but don’t believe a syllable they howl. Somebody who feels no obligation to noone but himself and what allow what didn’t seem to affect his wallet any?….."
3.) "I think “Long Island Mike” could take “San Francisco” Dan in the manly arts. Uh-oh! I put “man” and “art” in the same sentence! I’ve done with Christian Theology (Sorry, Dan, I know your unfamiliar, i.e ignorant) describes as “putting you in the occasion of sin.” Now Dan will have all sorts of “Brokeback Mountain” sighs all day! Sorry, Man! If you could just stop thinking of meatballs in trailer parks that might be a good start!"
4.) Lane, my apologies to all the sane among us. It is tiring accepting the stripes of the good fight without wanting to dish some out yourself. I prefer the sublime to the slime but if a commie-sodomite attacks me in the sewer, I sometimes want to throw some of the refuse back at the aggressor. I don’t think Liberals should go unassailed. They get their news from “The Daily Show”, so it’s not like they read at all. Liberals like one-liners and humorous charicatures, so I give ‘em some…Can’t we just call it charity?..:) I’ll try to do better….:)
5.) “..0300 bullet catchers.” I don’t think you know any Marines. I don’t think you know anything about bullets. I do think you know a lot about “catching.” I think you confuse “bigots” and “racists” with “straight” and “patriotic”. You confuse “blithering idiots” with profanity-laced tirades after a sordid offer of yours. I think you think their “brave” because they have those manly chests you love, but mostly a HEART you, in a thousand lifetimes, could never fathom.
6.) "…..I would be willing to wager there are more mental health issues among the liberals “Hate/Blame America First” crowd than Our Nation’s Finest!"
7.) If it’s happenning, it’s cyclical , and man does not affect it either way. The greens-with-envy just want any reason to install socialism. (Socialism=Communism with a smile). If liberals think there are too many people on earth, I think Larry King, Ted Turner, and Howard Dean should off Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, and Tom Brokaw before making the greatest sacrifice for the ozone they love so much. We, then, can give their wealth to the poor buying them all Electric Cars, with killer sound systems. I say, Liberals, be the leaders for The Culture of Death you have always been!
8.) "……The Secular Humanists impose their religion on us every day. We have the 10 commandments. They have their own list. Let’s see if I remember: 10.) Recycle 9.) Don’t Smoke 8.) Teach every child, from the earliest moments of cognizance, “safe-sex”. 7.) America is evil. 6.) Traditional families are evil. 5.) Evil, conservatives do, is real but the devil does not exist. 4.) The pope is the antichrist, but the devil does not exist. 3.) Pornography is free speech. 2.) Prayer is intellectual genocide. Infanticide is a choice. 1.) God must be stricken from all public discourse. Mao and Stalin are our guides. There. I guess I paid better attention in grammar swchool then I thought… "
9.) ESC is just another way for The Culture Of Death to hope for a “blessing” from it’s two-fold “sacrament” of abortion and invitro Fraken-science. ESC promises nothing but it’s next clever lie. “If messing with embryo’s didn’t work-Imagine the success we would have harvesting ‘parts’ from ‘unwanted pregnancies..” “….he has been a liar and a murderer since the beginning…”
10.) "Jezebel keeps killing the prophets. Be not afraid. The dogs in the street are very hungry…"
These are just some examples of "coherent, rational argument"s made by yourself Joe.
Stop being a ridiculous hypocrite. Do everyone a favor, take your religious fanaticism, ignorant hatred, weak arguments, hypocrisy, and your basic stupidity and go home and stay there. There is no place for you here…on an "Intellectual" site.
Comment by LyonBrave | August 8, 2006
Mr. Wright, I apologize for my lact of tact and itchy trigger-finger. I discern some hope for you, yet. Do you know someone in your family who has done something much more wrong than Gibson? Tell anyone? Let's not abet liberals in their fanatacism. Mel Gibson has made a mistake and is looking to make reparation. Liberals never do either. I go to Confession often. I mess up all the time. I need God to forgive me. I'm sure if God extended to Ahmdo the same Mercy he's extended to me, Ahmdo would be a saint, while I am most certainly not. Love your family, John. Don't excoriate them publicly. Again, my apologies. Sometimes I burn with too much zeal…
Comment by Joseph | August 8, 2006
I looked at Ahmdo's link because I thought he was being satirical, but it turns out he is serious about the garbage he spews. It is amazing to me that people really believe this kind of stuff, but Ahmdo does.
Interestingly, Lyonbrave as a leftist has much in common with Ahmdo philosphically speaking. The two agree on the nature of the war, Jews, the Bible, and Christians. They also find common ground regarding GW Bush, hatred of America, and a number of other issues.
Leftists are virually indistinguishable from Islamofascists in extremist dogmatism.
Comment by mountain man | August 8, 2006
I trust my teenagers to behave better than Mel. He forgot to grow up or he is hanging out with juveniles and regressing. I feel for his family.
Comment by PARSIMONIOUS MOM | August 8, 2006
What to think of Mel
As a Jew, I should be furious with him … and I am a little.
I defended Gibson when he made “The Passion of Christ”, because anti-Semitism did not seem his point, and it would have been both historically and doctrinally false to tell the story otherwise. A less controversial film (i.e., spineless) might go something like: “Pilate, what say we crucify this Jesus guy just for the heck of it.” All four of the Christian gospels have Jewish authorities convicting Jesus and sending him off to Pilate for punishment. Jesus lived in troubled times marked by Jewish unrest. The Romans were ruthless in putting down any sign of revolt, and Jewish magistrates were eager to mollify Rome. The high-priest, Caiaphus, was a Roman appointee; and so too were many in his entourage. More than 2,000 Jews were crucified during this period, often for nothing worse than complaining or refusing to pay taxes. Judea was annexed by Rome less than a century before and Rome still had a death grip on the place. The Romans were sensitive to the significance Passover had for Jews (exodus and freedom), and knew the Temple was a focus for Jewish deliverance. Jesus and his followers started a ruckus over money-changers (merchants?) plying their wares in the Temple; which provoked a predictable reaction. Thus, the condemnation made by the Jewish authorities is central to and inescapable from the story of the passion. It is the details that remain clouded, leaving us with the gospel accounts and other non-contemporaries as the only substantial record, and making Gibson’s portrayal no more controversial than C.B. DeMille’s (The King of Kings) or Lloyd Douglas’s (“The Robe”).
What I haven't forgiven Gibson for is going drag in "What a Woman Wants". In Mrs. Soffel, Gibson was a young dumb Hollywood 'hottie' and can be forgiven taking whatever roles he was offered. By the time he made WWW, though, he was a mature, savvy heart-throb with the luxury to pick and choose and a responsibility to men everywhere to maintain male poise. Moreover, he'd gotten to the point in his career he was making frequent artistic demands and contributions to plots, so he either came up with that particular 'giggle' or added to it. Now, I have nothing against some guy exploring his "feminine side", but, PLEASE, keep it to your self and way off the celluloid! You're making the rest of us nuts with that. It wasn't long after WWW that some idealistic young female recommended to me: "You need to get in touch with your feminine side". I won't go into my response, but suffice it to say she turned bright red and clammed up. I'm just lucky she had enough sense not to make more of it than it was (standing up for male-virtue).
Like you, I decided long ago that boycotting every actor, director, musician, singer, playwright, and sports celebrity who makes asinine remarks, reveals a dark-side, or acts the radical-leftist is a waste of effort. Worse, I'd have to throw out my entire VHS-DVD collection; including some really great flicks. I'd be left with nothing but John Wayne (which is not so bad, come to think of it).
To be fair, Gibson has made more good movies than bad; and some of them rank among my favorites (We Were Soldiers, The Patriot, Chicken Run, The Million Dollar Hotel, Conspiracy Theory, Ransom, Braveheart, Maverick, and Lethal Weapon). As you can see, I like a good manly yarn. I also like Gibson's sense of humor, bonhomie, and wildness. I do think Gibson should apologize for his anti-Semitic remarks (if true). As penance, he should portray a noble Jew, one who demonstrates our virile, manly qualities. Can’t you see him playing Moshe Dayan or Judas Maccabeus? Hey, maybe he’ll play Woody Allen … with the physique and sex-appeal Woody always craved!
Comment by Bob Stapler | August 8, 2006
Mr. Wright, I do not use MySpace. I much prefer Livejournal's layout. As for
your unwarranted ad hominem attack, I consider neither Ahmdo nor myself
a "freak." Ahmdo was merely posting his true feelings, and I was posting mine.
If that offends you, mate, then I refer you to the argument of everyone who
hides behind the first amendment: you don't have to read it. I skip over posts
all the time that do not engage my interest. I would have ignored your nastiness,
but I didn't want you to interpret my silence as agreement. Happy reading,
and have a nice day.
Comment by Lane Russell | August 8, 2006
Yowch, LyonBrave! Whoah, I've not seen such verbal smackdown since
the last time I was made to watch "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the
Desert!" I can feel the frosty hostility from way over here! I must inquire, since
the opinions of those with whom you disagree vex you so, why are you such a
consistent reader? Your posts are so very hostile, your arguments are repetitive,
your tone is always condescending, so why do you torture yourself?
Why do you insist on the tired old "unfulfilled National Guard duty" issue? That
election was over months ago? Why do you begrudge the President his vacation
time? You don't think the Presidency is stressful enough to warrant a couple
of working getaways? Why are you afraid of so-called "illegal" wiretaps? And who
so far has been arrested because of them? Can you name one? Or are you afraid
of the big, bad Patriot Act? If so, you can relax. I downloaded and read the thing,
and it's written in incomprehensible legalese globbledygook, referencing and
cross-referencing paragraphs in legal texts that I have no idea where to begin looking
for. The thing makes no sense whatsoever, it was written that way so that
lawyers could more easily read into it whatever they needed at the moment, just
like they do with the laws that were written when this country was new. If you
really want something to lose sleep over, read the National Security Act of
1947. But the "illegal war" nonsense is one of my favorite
accusations by the left. Exactly what law did military intervention in Iraq
violate? I can tell you…exactly NONE. The actions we have undertaken in
Iraq were done so specifically to ENFORCE UN resolutions that were made
fifteen years ago to the effect of, "Prove that you've disposed of your WMD's
or we send troops into Iraq to do it for you." As to spinning attention away from
Iraq, I'd like to see MORE attention paid to what's really going on over there…
the 70% voter turnout, for instance, the food and water that we're getting to
the Iraqis, and the fact that the Iraqi people no longer have to worry about
police raids in the middle of the night carting their families off never to be seen
again.
I could go on and on, Lyonbrave, but I don't have the time to comb through
this blog to answer every post you've made point by point. I believe my
point has been sufficiently made. If you're going to snipe, if you're going to
throw a hissy, go right ahead, but please come up with something new. The
old stuff is getting boring as all get-out.
Comment by Lane Russell | August 9, 2006
Mountain Man…….How do you come to the conclusion "The two agree on the nature of the war, Jews, the Bible, and Christians. They also find common ground regarding GW Bush, hatred of America, and a number of other issues."? Please, if you wouldn't mind referencing where in my statements you find these connections.
Which "War" do you speak of? The one in Iraq, or the one on Terror? They are two different wars in my mind. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Queda(spelling?), therefore Iraq has nothing to do with the "War on Terror".Why are we there? Big Oil interests, plain and simple. Why do you think we are there? Which reason will you use…..remember GW gave you several since he kept flip-flopping on his reasons he gave to the American public. As for the "War on Terror", I feel that this is just ridiculous Con rhetoric used to rally the ignorant to their "cause". How do you wage a war against a tactic????? As for going after Bin Laden….I am all for it, I just wonder why Iraq became the priority over him.
I don't remember where I mentioned anything about the Jews(if I did, show me where and your logic) so how you can come to the conclusion that I agree with Ahmdo about them I have no idea…..unless you are just making ignorant, generalized statements.
With regards to the bible, the part that I agreed with Ahmdo is actually true. If you have any experience with the bible you would know that. You either have no experience with it (so you should stop talking) or you are one of those that I described…a picker and chooser (in which case you are a raging hypocrite and should…stop talking)
The reasons I dislike GW are many. They stretch well beyond the ridiculous(my opinion) War in Iraq. If you would like me to go into them I would be glad to.
Where did I say I hated America????….oh, I never did. That's right….you are just using the same pathetic, over-used, black and white, myopic Con rhetoric that the Right-Wing Nuts use on you because you are 1.)too blind to see past it 2.)too ignorant to realize the snow job 3.) reacting based on blind partisanship
Give me a truly logical argument as to why I "hate America". Oh wait, based on your statements, I don't think you understand what logical means.
What are these "number of other issues"???
You exemplify what is wrong with this site…..ridiculous and illogical statements that are solely used because it is what all the Cons have seen or heard from all the Con media types. If this is your idea of engaging in debate, please refrain from engaging me in any way, shape, or form. Take your childish, ignorant, pathetic remarks and stay home and try to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time….that seems to be more your speed.
Comment by LyonBrave | August 9, 2006
Ooo, Lyonbrave, you sure put me in my place with your rant. Interestingly, you sound just like Ahmdo again. Why don't you respond to this post, and further cement my point?
War in Iraq vs war on terror… funny thing with you leftists, you keep making this distinction despite the ample evidence that Iraq was harboring, adiding and funding terrorists. I guess if you just keep repeating it often enough, you begin to believe it.
Do you hate America? Well, I don't know you, and frankly, it is clear to me that I wouldn't want to know someone like you. My comment, why using you as an example, was more oriented toward the general position of leftists in this country. If you leftists didn't hate this country, you wouldn't be trying so hard to tear it apart.
You all wouldn't jump on every opportunity to call America names like "imperialist," "invaders," "oppressors," and other similar terms. You wouldn't continually try to make God unconstitutional. You wouldn't want criminals back on the street. You wouldn't force poor people to live in crime infested government housing and barely subsist on welfare. You wouldn't be in favor of racist abortion politics which kill a disporportionate number of babies of color.
Regarding Jews, Ahmdo wants them to give up their land to the Palestinians. In fact, he wants them out of the middle east. He doesn't recognize the state of Israel. If your position differs in any substantial way, I apologize. Again, I was more oriented toward leftists in general.
Why is it that you leftists cannot resist personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you? Why is it that anyone who feels differently than you are stupid, evil, or bigoted? Is that what it means to be "intellectual?" Is that what a thinking person does, parrot leftist slogans?
Comment by mountain man | August 9, 2006
As time goes by the past does not become any less important!!!!
How soon you forget Lane, the reasons we went to war.
1.) Saddam was connected in some way to 9/11….oops wrong, lets give 'em a new one (Editor's note: It is documented that training took place in Iraq.)
2.) Iraq and Al-Qaeda connection…….oops wrong, lets give 'em a new one (Editor's Note: There is documentation proving this connection. It has been published.)
3.) Iraq is an immediate threat……oops wrong, lets give 'em a new one
4.) We know they have WMD's……oops wrong, lets give 'em a new one
(Editor's Note: This is also documented as correct and has been widely published.)
5.) We want to bring democracy to the Middle East……an Immposibility
As for what is going on there now…..try CIVIL WAR!!!!
Why are you and your brethren so afraid, hateful of anything liberal?
Why are you and your brethren so afraid, hateful of the freedoms granted by our constitution?
Why are you and your brethren so afraid, hateful of the search for truth?
Why are you and your brethren so afraid, hateful of peace?
Why are you and your brethren so afraid, hateful of repetition?
Why are you and your brethren so afraid, hateful of America?
Why are you and your brethren so afraid, hateful of homosexuality?
Why are you and your brethren so afraid, hateful of equality?
Why are you and your brethren so afraid, hateful of the real reasons for the war?
Why are you and your brethren so afraid, hateful of being engaged in the same manner in which you engage?
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the PROPAGANDA." –George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005.
Editor's Note: Comment posters are admonished to get their facts correct
Comment by LyonBravedocu | August 9, 2006
Mountain Man, I am not trying to put anyone in their "place". I want to engage in debate with someone who uses facts not rhetoric, or beliefs.
If you Cons didn’t hate this country, you wouldn’t be trying so hard to destroy the freedoms this country was founded on.
"You all wouldn’t jump on every opportunity to call America names like “imperialist,” ……in a sense we are and always have been…….. “invaders,”…….we did…….. “oppressors,” I have never heard anyone I know (many liberals) ever use that term……. and other similar terms."
You wouldn’t continually try to make God unconstitutional……God has nothing to do with the Constitution, except our freedom of religion and freedom of government based on religion. Believe what you want…..just don't tell me what to believe in and don't make my right to believe in anything I want illegal.
You wouldn’t want criminals back on the street……I don't!?!?!? Who would??
You wouldn’t force poor people to live in crime infested government housing and barely subsist on welfare…….so tax cuts for the rich will help that situation?????
You wouldn’t be in favor of racist abortion politics which kill a disporportionate number of babies of color……you need to explain this piece to me, sorry.
If you feel that all I do is attack and condescend…..how does it feel?
Comment by LyonBrave | August 9, 2006
I want thank LyingKnave for providing my Top 10 list for today! You are a raving, check that, ranting lunatic! In your hell-induced rage you show an inability to appreciate Tradition, Property, Family, Country, or Faith. It's not fear that drives Patriots and Heroes. It's Love. Love first, of Love itself. You want to make up the rules as you go along. We know Love, His name, and Ways. We know by heart the tenants of The Great Experiment that has given us the greatest country that has ever existed. We guard these precepts with our lives. Truth is not found in the stars it is found within while meditating on Truth Himself. We won't make Pilate's inquiry for we know. Communism is the greatest scourge humanity has ever known, moreso than even the Jihadists. Go to Marx. Read his "Manifesto." Every opinion you and all your liberal minions have ape Marx perfectly. You think your enlightened? You are a fool! Rome before she fell thought like you did. The French, English, and Mexicans during their "revolutions" thought as you do killing all religous in the name of cursed "enlightenment" and giving license to every abomination at the same time. You are what post-Christian Europe is today. Cowards awaiting the Moslem hordes to come and put their sword to your crescent. You are a bitter but very redundant pill endlessly spewing forth the same tired drivel as some novel idea. Pray. Repent! Or else go to the fire prepared for your leader and his messengers…
Comment by Joseph | August 9, 2006
Otherwise, have a nice day! :)
Comment by Joseph | August 9, 2006
Lyonbrave,
For some reason I still hold out hope that we can perhaps reason together. You said, “Take your childish, ignorant, pathetic remarks and stay home and try to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time….that seems to be more your speed.” I may be mistaken, but that doesn’t sound like you “want to engage in debate with someone who uses facts not rhetoric, or beliefs,” it sounds like someone who is trying to put someone in their place.
When you engage in personal attacks and unsubstantiated assertions, my only obligation according to the rules of debate is dismiss your argument by responding in kind. If you do not want me to do so, then bring back a level of civility more in keeping with your professed desire to debate.
What do you mean that “cons” are trying to destroy freedom? You make many unsubstantiated charges like this as if they were indisputable facts. You don’t know if I am a “con,” and you didn’t name any supposed curtailing of freedoms. Come on, Lyonbrave, just because you say something doesn’t mean it is gospel truth.
God has nothing to do with the Constitution? Then why do so many leftists want to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency, prevent people from praying whenever they want, prevent children from writing about Jesus in a report at public schools, and remove “Under God” from the pledge? Does “…nor preventing the free exercise thereof…” mean anything to you? And what does “…secure the Blessings of Liberty..” mean? What does “…in the year of our Lord…” mean? It doesn’t sound to me that God is absent from the Constitution.
And how about the Declaration of Independence? Could we include this as an important founding document? It says, “…Laws of Nature and of Nature's God…, “”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…,” and “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence…”
If you really want to debate, you will have to move on from the moveon.org website talking points. And when someone questions you, it would be helpful to not react like a fundamentalist whose dogma is being questioned.
Comment by mountain man | August 9, 2006
Lighten up. Did you all forget this is for comments on Burt's article?
Comment by parsimonius mom | August 10, 2006
I'm sorry, P mom. Lyonbrave hijacked the thread with his off-subject rants and I couldn't resist. You are right. I grovel at your feet.
Comment by mountain man | August 11, 2006
Mountain Man……I must apologize for my ranting. It is in response to all the same type of things I have seen on this site. Ridiculous unsubstantiated statements about anything liberal. Too many people use dogmatic arguments here. It is not productive and is plain silly. I was just using the same form of argument.
As for "In God We Trust" being printed on our money. One can truly make the argument that it is unconstitutional based on this fact….the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"). Also, it seems logical to me that it was added to all currency in the 50's for purely political reasons. Personally, I feel that E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One) is much more appropriate for what this country stands for.
Also, the "corrections" in my previous post have not been substantiated by actual documents, and requests for such have been ignored, so to coin a phrase by Mountain Man "just because you say something doesn’t mean it is gospel truth".
Comment by LyonBrave | August 16, 2006