Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

NEWS 173 - 35 Comments
From: Ross Entered on: February 24, 2004 8:40 AM
Yeah, we discussed it some here:     http://www.jackassery.com/viewcomments.jsp?type=new s&id=170#2157     We all are in agreement that Mel Gibson must have his dick in the peanut butter, because he's fucking nuts.
From: Swerb Entered on: February 24, 2004 3:41 PM
Well, I saw the movie last night... and was thoroughly disgusted. I'm the last person to say a movie is too violent, but it's graphic and gory to a fault, and I don't see how anyone could glean any message out of the movie other than "Man, that must've hurt." I don't know what point Mel was trying to make other than to illustrate that he's a disturbed individual. I mean, Jesus is whipped and tortured and kicked and punched and pushed down until he's a fucking piece of meat, blood all over him, guards whipping him with cat o nine tails-type things with barbs on them that rip hunks of flesh off his bones until you can see his ribs... and all I thought was, "Jeez, that looks infected." Then, he's stripped and thrown on the rocks, and gravel is clinging to his oozing wounds, which look so fucking vile... then, he's hanging on the cross after having his arm yanked out of the socket so his hand lines up with the holes on the cross (no lie), and Mary comes up and kisses his bloody feet, and gets blood all over her face, and then he dies, and the guard jabs ol' Christ right in the ribs, and blood spews all over the place, as if he had any fucking blood left in him. It's really fucked up.     On top of that, there's very little humanity to the movie, and if you're not invested in Christianity, you're going to be emotionally uninvested throughout the film. All the gore bothered me more than the taking-the-Bible-at-face-value idiocy that Mel believes in, or the prayer and religious mumbo-jumbo that's inherent in such movies (Satan is even portrayed as an androgynous woman in a cloak, and there are a few cheesy scenes with Judas and some demons). If you decide to see the movie for yourself, don't get any popcorn, maybe just an empty bucket in case you feel like vomiting. Urgh.     Sorry if my ranting got a little lengthy there.
From: The Bone Entered on: February 24, 2004 3:58 PM
Aw shit, I must have missed this whole line of commentary while I was away from a computer. By the way, I heard that Gibson is of a particularly zealous brand of Catholic. The kind that shit's on the current establishment. Since the second Vatican councel in the early 60's (Vatican II), the Catholic church tried to be a little more modern and perform mass in the language of the country with the priest facing the congregation. Prior to this, it was said in Latin with the priest's back to the congregation. Also, the church tried to be a little more modern and allow some scientific explanation of phenomenon. Well Gibson and his brand of justice shit's all over the Vatican II and would prefer to revert back to inquisition style Catholicism.     Incidently, not every Christian get's to go to heaven according to Gibson, only Catholics. Even his wife who is an Episcopalian, and loves Jesus is shit out of luck according to Mel in an article I read. Although he denies it, I bet he really hates Jews.     I prefered him in his hard drinking Mad Max days.
From: Ross Entered on: February 25, 2004 8:08 AM
This page has tons of good Gibson links and commentary (including the "my wife is going to hell" quote):     http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blr cc_gibson.htm     As for hating Jews, read this one:     http://atheism.about.com/b/a/061810.htm     His father is a documented Holocaust-denier. I'm sure some of that shit stuck.     Swerb: I read that this is one of the goriest movies ever. What gets me is that I recently read the four gospels' accounts of Jesus's death, and they didn't describe anywhere near that level of detail. They did say he wore a crown of thorns, and one or two of them mentioned the spear in his side. They mentioned how some people (were they Jews? I can't remember) calling for his death. But even that was only in 1 or 2 of the 4 accounts. (which by the way were written at least a couple of generations after Jesus lived, ie. not by anyone who saw anything).     I'll have to check the flick out, if only so I can comment intelligently when the inevitable conversations arise.
From: Swerb Entered on: February 25, 2004 2:06 PM
Well, Diane Sawyer confronted him about his father, and he refused to talk about him. Which I can understand, because it's a no-win situation: The headlines would read, "Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite" or "Mel thinks his own father is a crackpot!" But I think Diane Sawyer sucks because she asked him, point blank, "Are you an anti-Semite?" Well, of course he's going to say no. More creative questions would have led to more insight, I think.     Ross: The strangest thing about this movie is the variety of reactions it's getting. John Douglas and I thought it was so disgusting, any humanity the film was trying to convey was buried in gore. But then I talked to a co-worker who hated Pulp Fiction because it was so violent, and she thought The Passion was moving, and she cried throughout it. Now, her opinion doesn't mean squat to me (she thought American Splendor was "boring"), and I think she's a relatively devout Christian. I guess the more fundamentalist you are, the more you think seeing all that violence is necessary to understand Jesus' sacrifice. Me, I just can't comprehend that mentality.     You know, Ross, how you complained about Alien Resurrection because it lingered on the gore, unnecessarily? Well, The Passion does that for two hours. I do think ol' Mel has an artful directorial style (in general; I did like Braveheart), but slow-mo cameras lingering on blood-pulpy Christ flesh? Why? Because he's nucking futs.
From: Swerb Entered on: February 25, 2004 3:04 PM
Have to add one very politically incorrect statement regarding this movie: You know how some people visit a slaughterhouse, and never want to eat meat again? Well, after seeing this movie, my desire to consume Christ flesh has evaporated. I will never, ever be a Christ carnivore (or a Catholic, which is the P.C. term for it).
From: The Bone Entered on: February 26, 2004 1:04 AM
You what else is crazy? Many Christians think Christ's crucifiction was the greatest sufferring any human has ever endured. They don't realize hundred's of guys got the same thing day in and day out. In fact 2 other guys were up there right next to him that same day.
From: Ross Entered on: February 26, 2004 9:27 AM
Swerb, that's hilarious. I can't believe that "devout" Catholics actually are supposed to really, truly, believe in "transubstantiation" - that the wafer and wine actually turn into Christ's body and blood, respectively. I don't call that faith, I call that lunacy. Really.     The more I hear about this movie, the less I want to see it. Sounds like it's just a propoganda film for gullible religious wafflers. So your martyr got the shit tortured out of him (what real evidence there is of this, I am unsure) before being crucified. As Bone says, this happened to countless other Jews (somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 depending on who you read).
From: John Entered on: February 26, 2004 10:23 AM
According to Mel's dad there was no holocaust and all the Jews just spread around the world and took the banks over. This guy is a lunatic and I can see where Mel gets it from. Also, from what I heard on Howard Stern it pretty much confirmed what Swerb was saying. This movie is one giant and violent anti-Semitic fuck fest. I can think of no compelling reason to see this film.
From: The Bone Entered on: February 26, 2004 10:43 AM
I really want to see it. It's pretty closed minded to shit all over someone and their film if you haven't seen it. I'd rather see the film and judge it for myself. Gibson on the other hand - I've seen his interviews and he is crazy. No doubt about it.
From: Swerb Entered on: February 26, 2004 11:09 AM
Bone, I wholeheartedly agree. Judgement should be reserved until after you've seen the movie. Thankfully, I didn't have to pay to see the movie, because I'd take issue with financially supporting Mel Gibson's questionable endeavors.     Also, I don't think the movie is at all overtly anti-Semitic. It's noteworthy that Gibson lends Roman leader Pontius Pilate some humanity in certain scenes (he does show some remorse for allowing the crucifixion to happen), but doesn't do the same for the Jewish bishops calling for Jesus to be crucified - read into that as you may. Those bishops are obviously not representing the feelings of the entire Jewish population - not all of them are screaming for Jesus' head, and many of them are sympathetic of his plight. Any reasonable person who watches this movie isn't going to walk away from it hating Jews because "they killed Jesus," just like we shouldn't hate every Catholic just because a handful of priests were caught molesting little boys.
From: Ross Entered on: February 26, 2004 12:05 PM
Wait Swerb, you go from saying that you have to see the movie before judging it, to saying that you don't want to financially support the movie by paying for it. So what are all us peons supposed to do?
From: Swerb Entered on: February 26, 2004 8:04 PM
Sneak into the theater, of course.     Seriously, you're supposed to do whatever you want to do. I'm only expressing my two cents on the issue, and I'm not gloating to the "peons" - I just don't think anyone should label the movie as anti-Semitic or too violent - or whatever - without at least watching it first. In hindsight, I'm just glad eight bucks of mine aren't going to Mel's lunatic fringe. I don't know whether anyone else in this discussion is wrangling with that issue. You're twisting my words, man. :)
From: The Bone Entered on: February 27, 2004 6:15 AM
Better watch out though!     http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/02/26/passion.de ath.reut/index.html
From: Ross Entered on: February 27, 2004 9:27 AM
I heard about that. Too bad for her. Maybe when she gets reincarnated as a Hindu she'll be a little more laid back. Anyway, I Tivo'ed Mel on Leno last night, haven't watched it yet. I couldn't resist wanting to hear what he'll say next. I have decided though, that I'm not going to pay to see it. I will most likely download a copy. Yeah, yeah, I know, they'll crucify me if they catch me!
From: John Entered on: March 2, 2004 12:12 PM
I was not stating Mel's movie is anti-Semitic, it's what they were saying on Stern. I myself don't know and will continue not to know since I will surely not pay to see it.
From: Ross Entered on: March 4, 2004 9:28 AM
This is great:
From: Ross Entered on: March 4, 2004 9:55 AM
Also, I found this hilarious site:     http://godhatesshrimp.com/
From: Ross Entered on: April 7, 2004 10:14 AM
This is a great review of the Passion that I just read about, it's too bad I haven't seen this sooner:     http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2 004/jesuschrist.shtml
From: Swerb Entered on: April 7, 2004 12:28 PM
That review is hilarious. I love it. She really skewers Christianity with - gasp! - logic. Plus, that's a great Simpsons quote... in fact, the Simpsons bashed Christians two weeks in a row, first with that one, and then in the following episode, Maggie is tested and has a really high IQ, to which the teacher responds, "That's a really high score for a Christian."     The thing I love about the Gibson-shit-smearing ep of South Park is how the Christians are depicted: Well-meaning, but very sheep-like. If they were in the habit of questioning things, they wouldn't be following Cartman-as-Hitler.
From: Swerb Entered on: April 7, 2004 12:45 PM
In fact, I've been digging the Flick Filosopher site. Her review of The Matrix Reloaded had me laughing out loud:     http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2 003/matrixrevolutions.shtml
From: Ross Entered on: April 7, 2004 2:57 PM
Dude, the Walking Tall review is even better:     http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2 004/walkingtall.shtml
From: Ross Entered on: October 29, 2004 8:01 AM
More Mel Gibson madness:     http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/new s/archive/2004/10/28/entertainment1456EDT0065.DTL     "I found that the cloning of human embryos will be used in the process and that, for me, I have an ethical problem with that," he said. "Why do I, as a taxpayer, have to fund something I believe is unethical?"     What a fucktard! Gee, Mel, I believe income taxes are unethical! I guess I shouldn't have to pay them at all, then! People actually respect this guy?
From: The Bone Entered on: October 30, 2004 12:52 PM
Well Gibson is crazy that's for sure but let me play Devil's Advocate here for a minute.     If you view an embryo as life wih a soul, I could see how killing it would be unethical. He just doesn't want his tax dollars going to that type of program. I'm sure he has no problem with his tax dollars going to highway improvements.     Ross, I haven't done enough research so maybe you can enlighten me. I've read that embryonic stem cell research doesn't really show much promise - at least in the forseable future due to problems with instability. Most of the progress is made through adult stem cells. Major medical companies are investing all their dollars in adult stem cell research because they don't have faith in embryonic. In fact, the current legislation allows embryonic stem cell cloning and research for the private sector.     If this is true, I have no real problem discontinuing the federally funded research and allowing the private sector to assume the burden on their dime. Then again, I don't have a full picture so I'm eager to here what you have to say.
From: Ross Entered on: October 30, 2004 2:06 PM
Bone, I think I know why you think that, but let me assure you that it is completely untrue. Scientists contend that both adult and embryonic stem cells hold promise, but not only that, that embryonic hold far more promise in fact (ask yourself: if this wasn't true, why would people be fighting in the first place?). The reason for this is that embyronic stem cells are the only ones that can change into any kind of cell that the body needs. Hence, an adult kidney stem cell will always be a kidney cell whereas an embryonic stem cell could become a kidney, liver, heart, or lung cell, or countless others.     The idea that is being spread around that the promise is all in adult cells comes from two places: First, it's the religious right. This is their way of saying you can have your stem cells but stay off away from their untenable religious superstitions. They are the ONLY ones that say that adult stem cells hold more promise. Whether the media reports this or not, I don't know but apparently they do, if that's what you've been hearing. *NO* scientists involved in stem cell research advocate forgoing embryonic research in favor of adult only. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.     Second, though, is that since Bush has essentially removed public funding for embryonic stem cells (he gave up like 22 existing lines but there are numerous problems with them and only a few have turned out to be viable for research) people have to get funding to do their work, so in this country they are doing more work with adult cells than they normally would. I definitely think, though, if you asked most of those scientists, they'd tell you that they'd rather be working on embryonic stem cell research. But yes, I have no trouble believing that so far, there has been more success with adult stem cells, but that's only because that's what most scientists can afford to work on!     It would be nice if these programs were funded entirely by the private sector, you're right - and maybe someday they can be - but since this is a very new area, government grants tend to kick off new areas like this, where investors would be more wary. This won't last forever, though.     However, there is a way around this, one that will be especially important if Bush gets re-elected (Zeus forbid): states can still fund it. Proposition 71 is on the ballot in California this Tuesday, which would allocate $3bn in state money to go toward stem cell research, and I don't believe it limits which kind. Since CA is a big state on the forfront of many sciences, this might be "good enough".     The point about Gibson still stands though: you cannot say that just because you don't agree with a purpose that the govt is using your tax dollars for, that you shouldn't have to put in for it. It just doesn't work that way. I don't agree that we should have soldiers in Iraq right now, but how much of my tax dollars, and hell, my childrens' tax dollars will go to paying for it?
From: The Bone Entered on: October 30, 2004 2:30 PM
Thanks for the info on the embryonic stem cells. That's pretty much what I figured.     Still, if Mel gibson want's to say he doesn't want his tax money to go to embryonic stem cell research, he should be allowed to air his opinion. Doesn't mean he won't pay his taxes though. It's not like he's saying that he'll stop paying taxes if that's where the money is going. At any rate the whole stem cell issue is lower on my list of problems.
From: Ross Entered on: October 30, 2004 9:01 PM
Technically it's not high on my list as I don't (yet) need any therapies requiring them either, but it's the principle of the matter: religious assholes are stifling science and free inquiry on the basis of antiquated, ignorant and indefinsible moral positions. That's the reason that it riles me up. The point is that it's a science that has the potential to better mankind (even if that doesn't directly mean me, presently) and they want to stop it because they think that a cluster of 10 cells - something they can't even see with their eyes - has a soul, the very concept of which there is no empirical evidence for and thus shouldn't even be discussed by politicians without busting out laughing. So guess what? They're all fucking crazy and that's the reason why their tax dollars should have to pay for it - they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.     And yes, Mel Gibson has a right to air his opinion. But since it's wrong, I also have the right to cut it to shreds. And what bothers me is that he's advocating the notion that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for things they disagree with. It's just irresponsible.
From: The Bone Entered on: October 31, 2004 10:03 AM
I tell you who I'd vote for in a heartbeat - Jesse Ventura. His approach to service to the country is similar to those of our forefathers. He's realistic about issues. He tells it how it is as opposed to the standard political tactic of telling you what you want to hear.     Here's a good link to his opinions on Bush:     http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5057133.html     Here's what he says about Bush's stance on stem cells, "If we had that type of attitude, we'd probably still have polio today. The scary thing for me was when President Bush said that's God's work. If we're going to wait for God to do it, we're going to be waiting a long, long time."     I love the man. If he were running, I'd volunteer to hold a sign in the pouring rain.
From: Ross Entered on: October 31, 2004 3:22 PM
I agree. I remember when he posited that religion is a crutch for ignorant people, and the firestorm that ensued. He won my undying respect for that - it took the kind of balls that this world needs a lot more of.
From: Swerb Entered on: November 1, 2004 12:40 PM
If you have a few minutes, check out this article:     http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704A.shtml     It's fascinating... it ran in the NY Times a couple weeks ago.
From: Ross Entered on: November 1, 2004 12:58 PM
It takes more than a few minutes to read that one. :) I read it last week, it's excellent and condemning and in the end, it just doesn't matter. Read this article and take note of the woman that the author talks to at the begining. Bush supporters don't read the NY Times. They don't read. At all.     http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/ oped/articles/2004/10/29/bushs_aversion_to_facts/
From: The Bone Entered on: November 1, 2004 4:05 PM
Thanks Swerb for that article - long but worth the read. I truly believe our country is in grave danger if Bush is re-elected. I fear that Bush's fanatic warmongering will damage our reputation in the international community - something we can't afford if we want to maintain our position as the moral highground. I worry about his judicial nominations. His fiscal policy will surely bring us one step closer to 3rd world status - maybe not the time he is out of office but if we don't have a couple of strong terms after Bush's. I'm not sure that Kerry can reverse the downward spiral Bush has already placed us in. I hope Kerry wins because Toronto is too cold.
From: Ross Entered on: November 1, 2004 6:00 PM
Here's an interview with the author of that article:     http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s123118 1.htm     What's so funny about the "reputation in the international community" - a sentiment I completely agree with - is that the Bushies actually think that it's a BONUS that they don't care what other countries think - that we actually SHOULD say "futoi" to the rest of the world if we don't agree. I guess I don't need to comment much about how sad I think that is.
From: The Bone Entered on: November 1, 2004 7:34 PM
What I can't comprehend is that this election is so close. It's hard to believe there are this many dillusional and misinformed Americans. Somehow I think America's affinity for religion is in some way tied to this.     By the way, did you see that Bin Laden is watching the election closely and the states that vote for Kerry will be safe from terror attack? Interesting. I wish he hadn't said that though. In my mind Americans don't like to be threatend into doing something. This may backfire. Who knows. I'd really like to see Bin Laden and George Bush duke it out to the death in a cage match. That would be sweet. Two religion crazed fanatics.
From: Ross Entered on: November 1, 2004 10:06 PM
The thing is, people don't see the irony in how similar the two are - blind to reason.