Strother provides a target-rich environment
Mel Gibson
No, but calling an female police officer 'sugar t!ts,' cursing profusely, and irrationally railing against Jews with much prejudice doesn't do much for his credibility as a reliable source of Godly truth.
I keep wondering where you get the idea that Gibson has assumed any mantle of "Godly truth?" He set out to make a biblically accurate film about the last 24 hours of Christ's life. He did a pretty good job of it. Attributes other than writer, director, and actor are purely assigned by you and others.
His behavior is a disservice to the same Christians he has grown to depend on to support his business-oriented endeavors.
That's a real hoot, coming from you, Strother. I'll keep that in mind next time we discuss bad behavior on the part of one of your celebrity gods.
He is a secular actor, like it or not. He's most recently evolved into a 'Christian Filmmaker,' even though his actions seem to be 180 degrees from what a Christian filmmaker would want to be associated with.
Your use of the term is simply to support your weak argument that Gibson has become some sort of Christian mentor. His role as "Christian Filmmaker" has been assigned by you and no one else that I am aware of. He has not promoted himself as such and has explicitly denied seeking such a role. Once again, you are trying to have it both ways. You want to assign some kind of role model status to Gibson while allowing the cretins you worship to skate away scot-free on the notion that they never sought role model status.
You, like the rest of your peers on the anti-Christian Left find the intrusion of any Christian subject or theme so threatening that you assign special status to anyone audacious enough to actually attempt it in the "mainstream" of the entertainment culture. Gibson is a mainstream actor and director who also happens to be a practicing Roman Catholic, nothing more, nothing less. There is no purpose in labeling him a "secular" actor other than to rhetorically place him in a position to be more sternly castigated for any and all bad behavior. It is an artificial construct designed to allow members of the entertainment culture to self-congratulate.
Alcohol allows many to speak and act without the 'mental filter' that most rational, sober people have. That doesn't mean that what is said or done wasn't thought or desired, though
Gee, Strother, are you backing away from your absolutist position? Good thinking. You're going to need an escape hatch later when one of your idols goes on a binge.
I'm really surprised that you buy into the 'Demon Alcohol' myth, especially considering your tendency to tout personal responsibility for what you say and do. If it's in there, alcohol may allow it to get out, but that's the extent of it. So, again, blaming alcohol consumption for what you say and do is a cop-out.
Don't be stupid. My argument has nothing to do with any "Demon Alcohol" myth. And your misunderstanding of personal responsibility is classic liberal stuff, thanks for the interlude. Human beings think a lot of things in the quiet, dark recesses on their minds. As you say, most of the time these things stay right there. And you're right, alcohol loosens inhibitions. It interrupts the personal dialog we all have going with ourselves. But it is inhibitions that partially make us what we are. They allow us to function in society with others. The personal responsibility part of this comes in understanding these things and exercising restraint with regard to drinking. Gibson utterly failed in that regard alone.
But I'd guess that Tommy Lee would tell you that all he is one bad-ass drummer. On the other hand, Mel Gibson has evolved into a Christian filmmaker. His audience expects much more (and much better) from him than what he has recently given them. Does that make him a 'low-life scumbag,' too?
So Tommy Lee is allowed to escape any "role model" status, simply because he falls into the ideal of what Strother envisions for an entertainer, while Gibson, who has not sought such status any more than Tommy Lee has cannot escape the mantle because he made a movie about Christ. That's a pretty tough set of rules you have there, Strother. One would almost say that you have arranged them so certain players cannot possibly win. Cecil B. DeMille made a number of biblically-themed movies and his personal life was, by all accounts, a complete shambles. So when can we expect a tirade on DeMille from you, Strother?
As for Gibson being a low-life scumbag, I already answered on the question of moral equivalence. I would only add that you ought to think about the difference between one or two incidents and a lifelong string of behavior.
Thomas Sowell and the draft
Or maybe, Sowell, today's kids have close relatives who were drafted to fight in the Vietnam War.
Your response is a non sequitur. Sowell is saying that draftable aged kids have been programmed by the public education politburo to reject patriotism. You are trying to equate the lack of patriotism with exposure to veterans. Unless there is more to it than that, your response is meaningless. Indeed, you appear to be agreeing with Dr. Sowell since he prefaced that part of his thesis by saying that today's draftees would be very different than those of WWII, before patriotism was converted by the Left into sacrilege
Smilin' Jimmy
Cater'? C'mon, Fox! Spend a bit of your revenue on some proofreaders! If you want cred, use spell check (or editors).
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
By the way, when will President Carter get enough ribbing from you guys? He's a good and reverent dude, already. I realize that the current president is a rather embarrassing Republican, but damn...
A good and reverent dude? What, did you go out drinking with Tucker last night and decide to post on the BP?
Carter is a lunatic. He is a mouthy moron who doesn't even know what he's saying half the time. And he doesn't even need alcohol to loosen his tongue. Let's hear a substantial rebuttal of what John Gibson asserts. Carter is saying that Israel has the right to defend itself, but God help them if they actually exercise it. You want to see an example of a genuine anti-Semite, look no further than old Smilin' Jimmy.
No, but calling an female police officer 'sugar t!ts,' cursing profusely, and irrationally railing against Jews with much prejudice doesn't do much for his credibility as a reliable source of Godly truth.
I keep wondering where you get the idea that Gibson has assumed any mantle of "Godly truth?" He set out to make a biblically accurate film about the last 24 hours of Christ's life. He did a pretty good job of it. Attributes other than writer, director, and actor are purely assigned by you and others.
His behavior is a disservice to the same Christians he has grown to depend on to support his business-oriented endeavors.
That's a real hoot, coming from you, Strother. I'll keep that in mind next time we discuss bad behavior on the part of one of your celebrity gods.
He is a secular actor, like it or not. He's most recently evolved into a 'Christian Filmmaker,' even though his actions seem to be 180 degrees from what a Christian filmmaker would want to be associated with.
Your use of the term is simply to support your weak argument that Gibson has become some sort of Christian mentor. His role as "Christian Filmmaker" has been assigned by you and no one else that I am aware of. He has not promoted himself as such and has explicitly denied seeking such a role. Once again, you are trying to have it both ways. You want to assign some kind of role model status to Gibson while allowing the cretins you worship to skate away scot-free on the notion that they never sought role model status.
You, like the rest of your peers on the anti-Christian Left find the intrusion of any Christian subject or theme so threatening that you assign special status to anyone audacious enough to actually attempt it in the "mainstream" of the entertainment culture. Gibson is a mainstream actor and director who also happens to be a practicing Roman Catholic, nothing more, nothing less. There is no purpose in labeling him a "secular" actor other than to rhetorically place him in a position to be more sternly castigated for any and all bad behavior. It is an artificial construct designed to allow members of the entertainment culture to self-congratulate.
Alcohol allows many to speak and act without the 'mental filter' that most rational, sober people have. That doesn't mean that what is said or done wasn't thought or desired, though
Gee, Strother, are you backing away from your absolutist position? Good thinking. You're going to need an escape hatch later when one of your idols goes on a binge.
I'm really surprised that you buy into the 'Demon Alcohol' myth, especially considering your tendency to tout personal responsibility for what you say and do. If it's in there, alcohol may allow it to get out, but that's the extent of it. So, again, blaming alcohol consumption for what you say and do is a cop-out.
Don't be stupid. My argument has nothing to do with any "Demon Alcohol" myth. And your misunderstanding of personal responsibility is classic liberal stuff, thanks for the interlude. Human beings think a lot of things in the quiet, dark recesses on their minds. As you say, most of the time these things stay right there. And you're right, alcohol loosens inhibitions. It interrupts the personal dialog we all have going with ourselves. But it is inhibitions that partially make us what we are. They allow us to function in society with others. The personal responsibility part of this comes in understanding these things and exercising restraint with regard to drinking. Gibson utterly failed in that regard alone.
But I'd guess that Tommy Lee would tell you that all he is one bad-ass drummer. On the other hand, Mel Gibson has evolved into a Christian filmmaker. His audience expects much more (and much better) from him than what he has recently given them. Does that make him a 'low-life scumbag,' too?
So Tommy Lee is allowed to escape any "role model" status, simply because he falls into the ideal of what Strother envisions for an entertainer, while Gibson, who has not sought such status any more than Tommy Lee has cannot escape the mantle because he made a movie about Christ. That's a pretty tough set of rules you have there, Strother. One would almost say that you have arranged them so certain players cannot possibly win. Cecil B. DeMille made a number of biblically-themed movies and his personal life was, by all accounts, a complete shambles. So when can we expect a tirade on DeMille from you, Strother?
As for Gibson being a low-life scumbag, I already answered on the question of moral equivalence. I would only add that you ought to think about the difference between one or two incidents and a lifelong string of behavior.
Thomas Sowell and the draft
Or maybe, Sowell, today's kids have close relatives who were drafted to fight in the Vietnam War.
Your response is a non sequitur. Sowell is saying that draftable aged kids have been programmed by the public education politburo to reject patriotism. You are trying to equate the lack of patriotism with exposure to veterans. Unless there is more to it than that, your response is meaningless. Indeed, you appear to be agreeing with Dr. Sowell since he prefaced that part of his thesis by saying that today's draftees would be very different than those of WWII, before patriotism was converted by the Left into sacrilege
Smilin' Jimmy
Cater'? C'mon, Fox! Spend a bit of your revenue on some proofreaders! If you want cred, use spell check (or editors).
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
By the way, when will President Carter get enough ribbing from you guys? He's a good and reverent dude, already. I realize that the current president is a rather embarrassing Republican, but damn...
A good and reverent dude? What, did you go out drinking with Tucker last night and decide to post on the BP?
Carter is a lunatic. He is a mouthy moron who doesn't even know what he's saying half the time. And he doesn't even need alcohol to loosen his tongue. Let's hear a substantial rebuttal of what John Gibson asserts. Carter is saying that Israel has the right to defend itself, but God help them if they actually exercise it. You want to see an example of a genuine anti-Semite, look no further than old Smilin' Jimmy.
posted by Anonymous | 6:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home