# Double standard



## Big Don (Aug 5, 2010)

*Double standard*

*Why is it that Mel Gibson is ripped by the media for anti-Semitic statements, and Oliver Stone isnt?*

By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe EXCERPT: August 4, 2010
 LATE IN July, a Hollywood honcho uncorks a blast of anti-Semitic  bile, the sort of malignant stereotype about Jews one might expect from  David Duke or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Is that newsworthy?
 It certainly was in 2006, when Mel Gibson, arrested in Malibu for  drunken driving, demanded to know whether the arresting deputy was  Jewish, and then launched into an anti-Semitic rant: [Expletive] Jews, he raged. The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.
 What followed was a Category 4 media hurricane.
 <<<SNIP>>>
 Pervading much of the medias coverage and commentary was a tone of unforgiving revulsion.
 Lets not cut Mel Gibson even the tiniest bit of slack, began Eugene Robinsons op-ed column  in The Washington Post. Talent agent Ari Emanuels call for Gibson to  be blacklisted was widely noted: People in the entertainment business,  whether Jew or gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how  much is at stake in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and  refusing to work with him, Emanuel wrote in an open letter on the Huffington Post.
 On The View, Barbara Walters announced that she wouldnt see any more of Gibsons movies. Slate explained How To Boycott Mel Gibson. CNNs Brooke Anderson, co-host of Showbiz Tonight, described  a sudden explosion of outrage with some of the most influential people  in Hollywood now saying they will never work with Mel Gibson again.  As if to confirm the point, ABC cancelled a Holocaust-themed mini-series it had been developing with Gibson.
 But when, almost exactly four years later, another Hollywood bigfoot  uttered an anti-Semitic rant, the reaction couldnt have been more  different.
 In a July 25 interview with the Times of London, filmmaker Oliver Stone complained that Jewish domination of the media  focuses too much attention on the Holocaust, and prevents Americans  from understanding Hitler (and Stalin) in context  a wrong he  intends to right in a documentary he is making for Showtime. Stone  described these media-controlling Jews as the most powerful lobby in  Washington  hard workers who stay on top of every comment, and  are responsible for the fact that Israel has [expletive]-up United  States foreign policy for years.
 Like Gibson blaming Jews for the planets wars, Stones lament about  Jewish control of the media is classic anti-Semitism, straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Henry Fords The International Jew. Unlike Gibson, however, Stone gave vent to _his _bigotry while perfectly sober.
<<<SNIP>>>Media mogul Haim Saban did urge Showtime to cancel Stones documentary, and posted an online message  calling on Hollywood to give Stone a vigorous shove into the land of  forced retirement. But few if any media voices seconded the motion   not a word from Slate, for example  and some went out of their way to  pooh-pooh it: Los Angeles Times blogger Patrick Goldstein pronounced the idea not so different from the infamous 1950s Hollywood blacklist.
END EXCERPT


----------



## girlbug2 (Aug 5, 2010)

People (media) are far more willing to overlook indiscretions from those of their own political leanings.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Aug 5, 2010)

+1 on what she said.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 5, 2010)

Because the MSM loves Stone. AFAIK, Stone is the typical Holywood type. He's got some talent, did a couple of good movies and is now using his fame to push a political agenda. You're an f'ing Holuwood type, we pay you to be entertained. We don't really care what you have to say.

His 'documentary' is not being well accepted in the Jewish community.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 5, 2010)

Its not the speech its the animosity.
Sean


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 5, 2010)

Big Don said:


> *Double standard*
> 
> *Why is it that Mel Gibson is ripped by the media for anti-Semitic statements, and Oliver Stone isnt?*


 
Because Gibson made _The Passion of the Christ_ and Stone made _JFK_.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 5, 2010)

Antisemitism, particularly accusations that Jewish people control the media, cuts across many political lines.  Mel Gibson is just the latest.

A partial list of people whom I believe who have stated that "Jews control the media:"

President Nixon.
Reverend Billy Graham.
Reverend Jesse Jackson.
Minister Louis Farrakhan.
Charles Lindbergh.
Joseph Kennedy.
Oliver Stone.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenie.
Cindy Sheehan.
Pat Buchanan.

So I see these kinds of beliefs on the left and the right in the USA.

However, this is interesting:

http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs/A_S_Report_web.pdf

Some interesting summary findings of the study linked to above:



> Younger Americans more anti-Semitic
> A younger generation of Americans, those
> under thirty-five years of age, holds more
> anti-Semitic beliefs than the previous generation.





> *Belief that Jews control the media* and have too
> much influence on Wall Street
> *Nearly one quarter of the public (24%) believe
> that Jewish control of the news media
> ...





> Democrats tend to be more anti-Semitic than
> Republicans
> On nearly all variables, Democrats held more
> anti-Semitic beliefs than Republicans, reversing
> a historical trend.





> Jews as moral threat to America
> About 21% of Americans regard Jews as a
> threat to the moral character of the United
> States. Most see Jews as a small, rather than a
> ...





> Many millions of Americans have
> anti-Semitic beliefs
> The numbers of Americans holding anti-
> Semitic beliefs can be translated from percentages
> ...


----------



## Big Don (Aug 5, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Because Gibson made _The Passion of the Christ_ and Stone made _JFK_.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


So, jealousy, over the higher grossing movie?


----------



## chaos1551 (Aug 5, 2010)

All the people that got all worked up over Gibson don't have it in them just yet to lamblast another person.  They need a couple more years for the Gibson hype to die down so they sound more relevant.  Stone gets a pass this time.  Chalk it up to desensitization.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 5, 2010)

Big Don said:


> So, jealousy, over the higher grossing movie?


 
I was thinking more along the lines of competing Messiahs. But I'm sure they weren't happy with Mel's profit margin.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 5, 2010)

Anti-semitic rants are not going to win anyone friends in Hollywood.  

In fact I find it a bit puzzling that Stone says the media is dominated by Jews ,  then this opinion piece accuses self-same media (supposedly dominated by Jews) into giving Stone a pass for anti-semitism.

  So left leaning liberal Jews forgive anti-semitism because Stone is left leaning?


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2010)

It's not the antisemeitic comments that are keeping Gibson in the news.  It's the lunacy and continuing pattern of aggressive and unpredictable behavior.   Unfortunately, racism and bigotry are common enough now that it just isn't newsworthy without some kind of sensational angle.  

That said, I've read about stone's ongoing issues, so it must be in ye media somewhere.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 5, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> It's not the antisemeitic comments that are keeping Gibson in the news.  It's the lunacy and continuing pattern of aggressive and unpredictable behavior.   Unfortunately, racism and bigotry are common enough now that it just isn't newsworthy without some kind of sensational angle.
> 
> That said, I've read about stone's ongoing issues, so it must be in ye media somewhere.


 

  Points taken, maybe if Stone was ranting while DUI and confronting cops and beating his wife/girlfriend , demanding blow jobs and threatening to burn down the house his child is in if he doesn't get one....he might be in the news as much as Gibson...just maybe


----------



## Big Don (Aug 5, 2010)

As was stated in the OP, the big difference between their statements was that Mel was intoxicated while railing against the Jews, Oliver, on the other hand was stone sober. Most people say stupid things when drunk, God help us if every stupid thing said under the influence of alcohol were held against us... Sober, that is, as it should be, a different story.


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2010)

Big Don said:


> As was stated in the OP, the big difference between their statements was that Mel was intoxicated while railing against the Jews, Oliver, on the other hand was stone sober. Most people say stupid things when drunk, God help us if every stupid thing said under the influence of alcohol were held against us... Sober, that is, as it should be, a different story.


You're excusing Gibson because he was drunk?   As the old saying goes, "The Drunk Man says what the Sober Man thinks."


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 5, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> You're excusing Gibson because he was drunk?   As the old saying goes, "The Drunk Man says what the Sober Man thinks."



  yep,  vino veritas, what difference does it make if he was drunk, it is still opinions he obviously holds.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 5, 2010)

Because Mel Gibson is Australian?

Or maybe because one was a racist drunken rant and the other a more considered opinion over precisely what influence a hideous passage of events for one group during the Second World War has coloured and skewed the presentation of that period ever since?

I shall have to read the source more carefully before I finally decide, of course.  But one event seems to me to be clear racism induced by the simplicity that alcohol induces. Whereas the other is not anti-semitism but a question as to the impact of Holocaust Guilt on the media (fictional and otherwise) and how that translates through to international relations.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 5, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> yep,  vino veritas, what difference does it make if he was drunk, it is still opinions he obviously holds.



In defence of the Anglo-phobic-semi-Ozzy, I don't think that is necessarily true.  I know I have said things whilst drunk that I do not really believe.  Inebriated synapses free-form-fabricate somewhat akin to jazz and all kinds of nonsense can come out that is not really 'true' even in the mind of the sozzled person.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 5, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> You're excusing Gibson because he was drunk?   As the old saying goes, "The Drunk Man says what the Sober Man thinks."


In vino veritas is even older, however, imagine where you'd be if you did sober everything you said you'd do drunk...


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2010)

Hold my beer and watch this.


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 5, 2010)

Because Mel "is" proving himself to be a 1st rate moron.


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2010)

Big Don said:


> In vino veritas is even older, however, imagine where you'd be if you did sober everything you said you'd do drunk...


Don, it looks to me like there's a double standard here, but it's the people making excuses for Gibson.  The guy needs help, and I hope he gets it.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 5, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Don, it looks to me like there's a double standard here, but it's the people making excuses for Gibson. The guy needs help, and I hope he gets it.


 
Who has been making excuses for Gibson? I certainly haven't seen any. I've seen lots of people critisizing him, however.

I also haven't seen people making excuses for Stone, interestingly enough. I haven't seen a whole lot of comments about his remarks by the MSM. If I didn't know better I'd think people were ignoring him - so they didn't have to make excuses. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 5, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Because Mel Gibson is Australian?
> 
> Or maybe because one was a racist drunken rant and the other a more considered opinion over precisely what influence a hideous passage of events for one group during the Second World War has coloured and skewed the presentation of that period ever since?
> 
> I shall have to read the source more carefully before I finally decide, of course. But one event seems to me to be clear racism induced by the simplicity that alcohol induces. Whereas the other is not anti-semitism but a question as to the impact of Holocaust Guilt on the media (fictional and otherwise) and how that translates through to international relations.


 

...deep breath...
...deep breath...
...deep breath...


How an 'event' for one group coloured a period of time???
How the hell can you reduce the organized, systematized slaughter of half the Jewish population to an 'event'??????

You simply have no clue of the impact of that 'event'.

I grew up in a house where the entire family, extended or otherwise, lived in the same house. All 5 of us.
I grew up in a house where my parents were frightened by a knock on the door.
It had a profound effect on my generation. It will have a profound effect on my kids' generation, they grew up with an extended family of 12. It will likely affect their kids' generation.

It has been over 70 years and we are now back at the same population level. It destroyed a rich culture. 

It is not an 'event'. That butcher cannot be 'explained' in 'context'.

The anti-semite's greatest victory is when good people start with the "I'll have to study it more". Sowing the seed of doubt. Usually followed by the 'Jews control the media, so you can't really trust what it says'.

Tell me, when you go to church on Sunday, do you have security guards at the doors? Because WE have to.


----------



## teekin (Aug 6, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> ...deep breath...
> ...deep breath...
> ...deep breath...
> 
> ...


 

 in Canada? really?  that is ****ing tragic. I've led a sheltered life I suppose. To me " the Jews controll the Media" makes as much sense as " the Buhdists control the soy market". 

As for the world in 1930-1950's the theme seemed to be antisocial sociopaths in power, all over the world. How many people ( non-combatants) did Stalin and Hitler send to their death???? Perhaps once it gets into the millions it becomes too overwhelming to interalize, to comprehend. :erg: It's just an abstract number that in No Way can reflect the scale of human suffering it trys too. 

lori


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 6, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Who has been making excuses for Gibson? I certainly haven't seen any. I've seen lots of people critisizing him, however.
> 
> I also haven't seen people making excuses for Stone, interestingly enough. I haven't seen a whole lot of comments about his remarks by the MSM. If I didn't know better I'd think people were ignoring him - so they didn't have to make excuses.
> 
> ...



  Well it is certainly hard to ignore Gibson.  Stone makes a comment, it gets reported then he goes under the radar.   The media is just that, they report news,  unfortunately they report salacious news because that is what interests the public.

   If Stone were doing the bizarre things Gibson is doing, the MSM would be listing his anti-semitic comments along with his demands for blowjobs before burning down the house.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 6, 2010)

You are entitled to your reactions, *Canuck* and I would not dream of belittling the tragedies of that period. I think you perhaps read more into what I said than was there, maybe because you have previously butted heads with those who seek to hide or explain away what happened?

Before I changed careers into engineering, I used to be a historian and that can lead to a dispassionate tone when writing about major events of history. If that non-demonstrative tone offended you, then I am sorry to have caused such a reaction.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 6, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Well it is certainly hard to ignore Gibson. Stone makes a comment, it gets reported then he goes under the radar.


 
How is this different than what Gibson did? He made a comment that was recorded and then played over and over again in the media. Stone made a comment that was recorded which was played once or twice and then roundly ignored. Both men didn't go on and on making repeated comments. Stone's was dropped, Gibson's wasn't.

The difference was in the delivery. Gibson's was obviously made in a state of inebriation or other altered state coupled with high emotions because of troubles with his relationship with his girlfriend. Stone's, on the other hand, was lucid, calm, one could say calculated.



> The media is just that, they report news, unfortunately they report salacious news because that is what interests the public.


 
Maybe. But if they were in the reporting news business you'd think the cold, calculated anti-semitism of someone who is supposed to be nubered amongst the open-minded, tolerant elites would be of more interest than the ravings of someone who they had already portrayed as a bigot and alcoholic. After all, the Gibson story is so much "dog bites man" according to the media's own narrative. That, by definition, isn't news. 



> If Stone were doing the bizarre things Gibson is doing, the MSM would be listing his anti-semitic comments along with his demands for blowjobs before burning down the house.


 
What's more bizarre, some guy who is probably drunk who has obvious emtional problems ranting to his girl friend or a man with a lot of media influence and who is the favored of the multi-culturalist elites calmly talking about the need to put Hitler and his crimes "in context"? To me the answer is clear. What is even _more_ bizarre is that good, open minded liberals see nothing wrong with Stone's anti-semitism.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 6, 2010)

If one reads history (or even searches Google Books for that matter), one quickly finds that the last 400 years of the Western world are rife with antisemitic accusations.

In our times, we think about antisemitism as being restricted primarily to a specific time (the years running up to WWII) and a specific country (Germany).  In fact, most of the Western world shared a similar negative view on Jews.

Henry Ford wrote a book about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew

Funny, that's not something I was taught in school.  I thought he was just the inventor of 'mass production' and the man who revolutionized the automobile industry.

Popular Science, in 1900, published an article debunking current rumors that Jews 'controlled the banking industry'.

Boon's South Africa, in 1885, wrote:



> I think if there were no more Jews, and it was known that a single one example of this race existed anywhere, people would travel a hundred leagues to see it, even to shake hands, but now people turn out of their way. What a consummation to be devoutly hoped for, a time when one specimen only, and, as a curiosity, to be only seen in some future Barnum'sshowing the present order of things reversed, a Christian making profit out of a Jew, but what an awful connexion for the Heine of the past.



I also read statements that show a modicum of intelligence, even in ages when antisemitism was at a fever pitch:

Phrenological Magazine, Alfred Storey, 1881:



> Circumstances have of late tended to bring the racial characteristics of the Jews into more than common prominence. We have seen in Germany, and, to a lesser extent, in Russia, a feeling of deep hatred move the masses against them. In the former country it was with difficulty restrained from leading to actual violence, if, indeed, the danger has yet passed. In the over-burthened Fatherland the cry is that the Jews monopolise the sources of wealth, and that they crowd the professions, and other pursuits of peace and profit.





> Professor Karl Vogt, of Geneva, the eminent naturalist, has cleverly illustrated the prejudices now taking such ugly practical expression in Germany, the land inhabited by a " people of thinkers." He remarks :
> " It is said :
> "' Jews cheat!' Well, if they do, why are you stupid enough to let yourselves be cheated ?
> " Further:
> ...



We are shocked when someone says something overtly antisemitic today; but such prejudices are ancient, and are common to nearly every Western nation's history.  From Europe to the UK to the US and even to Africa, our common history include a frequent uprising of hatred for Jews and common accusations about what _"Jews control,"_ as well as resentment for that supposed behavior.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 6, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> How is this different than what Gibson did?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gibson made anti-semitic statements while driving drunk and confronting police.  Like it or not the public loves sensationalism , it is not the alleged liberal media making a big deal of it, it is the public, media is just pandering to them.  

Then he gets into a confrontation with a television host (who is jewish by they way....guess that doesn't stop him from being painted a liberal making a big deal out of Gibson and ignoring Stone) which brings it up again.  






 Then he gets into another controversy with his current girlfriend and his whole past history of bizarre behaviour including the anti-semitic comments are dredged up yet again.

 That is how it is different than Stone,  Stone isn't making a complete *** of himself constantly and making headlines.   




> But if they were in the reporting news business you'd think the cold, calculated anti-semitism of someone who is supposed to be nubered amongst the open-minded, tolerant elites would be of more interest than the ravings of someone who they had already portrayed as a bigot and alcoholic.



 poll your friends, the most rabid conservative ones and find out how many would see Stone's story, yawn and turn the page and how many would see Gibson's stories and keep reading.  Once again you are placing blame on the media when you should be blaming the public's interest in sensational stories.



> What is even _more_ bizarre is that good, open minded liberals see nothing wrong with Stone's anti-semitism.



 Name one.  Find me these open minded liberals that are okay Stone's antisemitism,  this is just a strawman you have created.


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 6, 2010)

Sorry for the topic diversion but the world needs to come together and realize that their racist remarks may in fact condemn their own ancestors. DNA studies are coming out with facts about who we are and our ancestors were. Myself being half Spanish found this to be interesting:

One in five Spaniards and Portuguese has a Jewish ancestor, while a tenth of Iberians boast North African ancestors, finds new research.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16200-spanish-inquisition-left-genetic-legacy-in-iberia.html

Searching DNA studies on Pubmed backs this up. To put this into perspective, think of any countries that have Spanish blood. They may or may not not resemble their ancestors but they obviously have ancestors they didn't realize they had. They same goes here in the US, most don't really know the DNA makeup of our ancestors. Theres so much more to who we are. We all know are nationalities but how many know the histories of our families homelands?

We are one people.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 6, 2010)

At one point during the last Ice Age, all humans were down to just a few thousand individuals. We were this close to going extinct. We are all related.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 6, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Gibson made anti-semitic statements while driving drunk and confronting police. Like it or not the public loves sensationalism , it is not the alleged liberal media making a big deal of it, it is the public, media is just pandering to them.
> 
> Then he gets into a confrontation with a television host (who is jewish by they way....guess that doesn't stop him from being painted a liberal making a big deal out of Gibson and ignoring Stone) which brings it up again.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, like I said, it's completely a pattern with Gibson. It's not _news_ in any real sense of the word. 



> That is how it is different than Stone, Stone isn't making a complete *** of himself constantly and making headlines.


 
Which was pretty much what I was trying to point out. Gibson's alcoholism and emotional problems isn't exactly helping him keep things under wraps and it's conceivable that at least some of his rantings stem from these problems (this isn't an excuse for his behavior, just a possible explanation).

Stone, on the other hand, isn't "making headlines" _and_ isn't sufering from alcoholism or emotional/mental problems. He's thougt about things, Analyzed them and, apparently, has no problem making anti-Semitic statements in a seemingly reasonable manner. This is worse than Gibson (who is pretty bad) for that exact reason. In Stone we have the "reasonableness" of anti-Semitism given a pass by the guardians of multiculturalism and open-mindedness.



> poll your friends, the most rabid conservative ones and find out how many would see Stone's story, yawn and turn the page and how many would see Gibson's stories and keep reading. Once again you are placing blame on the media when you should be blaming the public's interest in sensational stories.


 
Actually, most of my friends find them both pretty repugnant. 



> Name one. Find me these open minded liberals that are okay Stone's antisemitism, this is just a strawman you have created.


 
My point was that you can't find any liberals denouncing Stone. At least I can't. Can you? I'd be _happy_ to see some people from the MSM actually reacting in disgust to what he's said. Please help me out and point me in the right direction. 

If you'd be interested in one liberal's take on liberal anti-Semitism, however, you might want to read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/sophisticated-liberal-jew_b_191135.html (I'm assuming, of course, that Tarico's self-identification as a Liberal isn't part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and that the Huffington Post isn't suddenlly a conservative bastion).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 6, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> My point was that you can't find any liberals denouncing Stone. At least I can't. Can you? I'd be _happy_ to see some people from the MSM actually reacting in disgust to what he's said. Please help me out and point me in the right direction.
> 
> Chris



  This is Michael Coren, well known in Canada as a conservative defending Gibson by drawing parallels to Downey, Baldwin and Polanski.....puhleeze!

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/07/16/14738186.html

  Now find me the liberal commentator defending what Stone said.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 6, 2010)

Like the media needs a "course of conduct" to make something into a media sensation...if it was the "right person" they could go for weeks (if not months) on one event.


----------



## teekin (Aug 6, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> At one point during the last Ice Age, all humans were down to just a few thousand individuals. We were this close to going extinct. We are all related.


 
Yup we are all related closer than that. I think 6 degrees of Seperation had something to say about that. I have allways liked the quote "we all are made of Stardust". 

Lori


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 6, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> This is Michael Coren, well known in Canada as a conservative defending Gibson by drawing parallels to Downey, Baldwin and Polanski.....puhleeze!
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/07/16/14738186.html
> 
> Now find me the liberal commentator defending what Stone said.


 
Did you not read anything I posted? You can't find Libs defending Stone because you can't find them even mentioning his anti-Semitism. It's a _non-issue_ for them. They don't care he's anti-Semitic. 

The link I provided made the point that anti-Semitism is present in the Left, and subtley so. And it's a point made by a Liberal writing for a Liberal media outlet. This is just another example. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> At one point during the last Ice Age, all humans were down to just a few thousand individuals. We were this close to going extinct. We are all related.



Darned straight.  It's a fact I remind myself of sometimes when I become too 'umbraged' about what 'The' French or 'The' Yanks or the 'The' Somali's et al are getting up to.

As Grendel noted above, we don't have to go all that far down our family trees before we start to find common links.

I reckon for a species that nearly 'bought it' and that can't stop fighting amongst itself we've done pretty good.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 7, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> You can't find Libs defending Stone because you can't find them even mentioning his anti-Semitism. It's a _non-issue_ for them. They don't care he's anti-Semitic.
> 
> 
> Chris


 
 You made the strawman argument that liberals don't care about Stone, then require me to prove a negative, it's up to you to find me the liberal demonizing Gibson but defending Stone.  

   And Sam Rubin? He is a member of the media and I suppose fits in this broad brush you tar everyone in it as a liberal. He didn't as far as I know say anything about Stone but he took on Gibson over his comments....you are making the assumption that it is a non-issue for him because he hasn't publicly said anything.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 7, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> You made the strawman argument that liberals don't care about Stone, then require me to prove a negative, it's up to you to find me the liberal demonizing Gibson but defending Stone.


 
No, it requires you to find an example of one who critisized Stone for his anti-Semitism, that's all. It should be easy to do. It _should_ be. 



> And Sam Rubin? He is a member of the media and I suppose fits in this broad brush you tar everyone in it as a liberal.


 
I have no idea what his political leanings are. I had to google him to find out who he is. What I didn't see was any indication he said anything about Oliver Stone's remarks. 



> He didn't as far as I know say anything about Stone but he took on Gibson over his comments....you are making the assumption that it is a non-issue for him because he hasn't publicly said anything.


 
It's not erally an _assumption_. It's a conclusion, based on Rubin's and other media figures own actions. Rubin could easily prove me wrong, however (which I would love him to do) and demonstrate that for the media establishment anti-Semitism from a leftist non-Christian is as repugnant as anti-Semitism from a conservative Christian. 

Have you found any left leaning denunciations of Oliver Stone yet? I would actually like to see some as it would restore a bit of my lost confidence in the media. Or was Rubin and his denunciation of Gibson the only thing you could come up with to demonstrate that the media take's Oliver Stone's anti-Semitism seriously?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 7, 2010)

Where can we find a full transcript of this interview?  

I'd like to read for myself and decide for myself if there is rabid anti-Semitic sentiment behind what he said or if it is being seized upon to generate a furore when such is not warranted.  After all, if you substituted "English" into what the OP reported Oliver Stone said, then noone would have batted an eyelid.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 7, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> It's not erally an _assumption_. It's a conclusion, based on Rubin's and other media figures own actions. Rubin could easily prove me wrong, however (which I would love him to do) and demonstrate that for the media establishment anti-Semitism from a leftist non-Christian is as repugnant as anti-Semitism from a conservative Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris



  Didn't watch the video of Rubin's and Gibson's interview did you....or you didn't get the whole "you have a dog in this fight" comment by Gibson....Rubin is Jewish...according to your logic he is 

 1) in the media
 2) therefore Liberal
3) has commented on Gibson but not Stone.

 So must not care about Stone's anti-semitic comments.....yeah right.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 7, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Didn't watch the video of Rubin's and Gibson's interview did you....or you didn't get the whole "you have a dog in this fight" comment by Gibson....Rubin is Jewish...according to your logic he is
> 
> 1) in the media
> 2) therefore Liberal
> 3) has commented on Gibson but not Stone.


 
So must not care about Stone's anti-semitic comments.....yeah right.[/quote]

I don't think that qualifies as "my logic." Like I said, I don't know what Rubin's political leaning are. He _has_ commented on Gibson. He has not, as far as I can tell, commented on Stone, which would be simplicity itself to do. Perhpas I have just missed it. Please provide the link of Rubin doing so if you know of one. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 7, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> . He has not, as far as I can tell, commented on Stone, which would be simplicity itself to do. Perhpas I have just missed it. Please provide the link of Rubin doing so if you know of one.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



 WTF?  The guy is jewish...by what alternate universe do you live in do you think he wouldn't care about Stone's comments if he has heard them?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> WTF?  The guy is jewish...by what alternate universe do you live in do you think he wouldn't care about Stone's comments if he has heard them?



Stone is Jewish by his father's side, as I recall.  However, I agree with you on this issue.

For what it may be worth, I see 418 mainstream media stories about Stone regarding his statements.  I see that nearly every single one of them makes at least one reference to Gibson.

There is no double-standard that I can see.  Like you, I believe Gibson got the news spotlight due to two things: his previous anti-Semitic rant and his most recently made-public meltdown.  We as a people are not just fascinated by haters, but also by haters who are clearly coming undone.

The mainstream media is neither fair nor balanced.  And I believe that it tilts clearly to the left.  However, in this instance, I believe it is the public's prurient interest that prevails.  We love salacious stories of people in high places behaving badly.  A statement made by a famous director at a press conference is a lot less interesting, no matter how horrible it is, than a movie star making a similar statement in a drunken rant whilst demanding oral sex before threatening to burn his own house down.  No contest.

I don't feel it has much to do with the personal politics of Stone or Gibson.

Fair enough to condemn Antisemitism wherever it occurs?


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fair enough to condemn Antisemitism wherever it occurs?



 exactly , and while we are at it let's start out a thread on why Gibson's reference to n*ggers didn't seem to garner as much attention as his anti-semitic rants....must be the liberal MSM of course doesn't care about blacks.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 7, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> WTF? The guy is jewish...by what alternate universe do you live in do you think he wouldn't care about Stone's comments if he has heard them?


 
I don't know anyting about Rubin. If he is, as Bill stated, Jewish on his father's side he's not actually jewish (unless he converted). Judaism traces lineage by the mother's side. 

Perhaps he does find Oliver Stone's anti-Semitism horrible. I have seen no evidence that he does, however. And you haven't supplied any. I'd love to see video of him denouncing Stone for being a bigot and for thinking Hitler needs to be put "in context." Rarely have I heard anything so asinine. But I haven't seen any of that, despite asking you to provide a link. 

Let us grant for the sake of argument that Rubin does find Stone's anti-Semitism to be horrible just like the rest of us do. I still don't understand why he wouldn't treat him the same way he treated Gibson. Is it because Gibson is a drunk with emotional problems and Stone came off as being cool, clam and collected? (That seems to be what you intimated in previous postings. Stone isn't newsworthy because he's not a raving nut.) Personally, I have a much bigger problem with people who come to their bigoted positions after "much thought and consideration" and just want to put things "in context." It's all so educated and civilized, not like those stoopid red necks. Except for one thing; when it's presented as being educated and civilized it can do a lot more damage by influencing others than the good old boy in his pick-up, or the ranting alcoholic like Gibson. Stone gives anti-Semitism the veneer of respectibility. _That_ is why it's newsworthy and, in the long run, more dangerous than Gibson's drunken ravings.

If Rubin isn't replying because of Stone's delivery it's just a vindication of the article from the Huffington Post I posted. The subtlety of the Left's anti-Semitism is what makes it particularly dangerous.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> I don't know anyting about Rubin. If he is, as Bill stated, Jewish on his father's side he's not actually jewish (unless he converted). Judaism traces lineage by the mother's side.



Sorry if I was being confusing.  STONE is Jewish on his father's side.  His mother was Roman Catholic, and he was raised a Christian.



> Perhaps he does find Oliver Stone's anti-Semitism horrible. I have seen no evidence that he does, however. And you haven't supplied any. I'd love to see video of him denouncing Stone for being a bigot and for thinking Hitler needs to be put "in context." Rarely have I heard anything so asinine. But I haven't seen any of that, despite asking you to provide a link.



You're demanding that people be as outraged as you are.  They're not.  Time to get over that.  The world is actually full of Antisemitism.  As I posted not long ago in this thread, fully 10% of the US population believes that Jews control the media.  It's common and it's boring.  It's not news.



> Let us grant for the sake of argument that Rubin does find Stone's anti-Semitism to be horrible just like the rest of us do. I still don't understand why he wouldn't treat him the same way he treated Gibson. Is it because Gibson is a drunk with emotional problems and Stone came off as being cool, clam and collected? (That seems to be what you intimated in previous postings. Stone isn't newsworthy because he's not a raving nut.) Personally, I have a much bigger problem with people who come to their bigoted positions after "much thought and consideration" and just want to put things "in context." It's all so educated and civilized, not like those stoopid red necks. Except for one thing; when it's presented as being educated and civilized it can do a lot more damage by influencing others than the good old boy in his pick-up, or the ranting alcoholic like Gibson. Stone gives anti-Semitism the veneer of respectibility. _That_ is why it's newsworthy and, in the long run, more dangerous than Gibson's drunken ravings.



That's your opinion.  I agree that antisemitism is much more dangerous, insidious, and horrible than drunken rantings about hummers and arson.  However, the public is an ***.  The public likes loud noise and shiny things.  And the press sells whatever the public is buying.  This should not come as a shock to you.



> If Rubin isn't replying because of Stone's delivery it's just a vindication of the article from the Huffington Post I posted. The subtlety of the Left's anti-Semitism is what makes it particularly dangerous.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Also in the study I posted, it says that Democrats are much more likely to be antisemitic than Republicans.  This is, however, just the most recent reversal of a long-standing trend the other way.  So nobody gets the bye on this.  No one's hands are clean.

We're a nation of bigots.  Our history is one of racial and religious intolerance, with a notable effort to control by laws what we as a people cannot seem to control in our own souls.  Adolph Freaking Hitler though VERY HIGHLY of Henry Ford's antisemitism, and a copy of Ford's antisemitic pamphlets was found in his library.  He kept a portrait of Ford on his wall, for God's sake.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3071EFD3A5C1B7A93C6A91783D85F4C8385F9


> *NAZI HONOR TO FORD STIRS CANTOR'S IRE; Comedian Thinks Auto Man Is 'Damned Fool' for Letting Hitler Give Him Citation WARNS OF ANTI-SEMITISM Pleads for Active Opposition as Jewish Women Honor Him for Aid to Refugees*
> 
> 
> August 4, 1938, Thursday
> ...



If you read history, you see that at the time of the ascent of Hitler, most of Europe and the UK and the USA had strong antisemitic movements within them.  The USA was the LEADER in the Eugenics movement prior to the rise of the Third Reich.  It was only the extreme barbarism of the Nazis that shocked the American public to the extent that it became very unpopular to be pro-Nazi or anti-Jew or pro-Eugenics.

In other words, if we hadn't fought Germany, we might well have become just like them.  We thought that there was a "Jewish Problem" too.

So no, nothing Gibson says shocks me, nor anything Stone says.  Antisemitism is boring, stupid, asinine, and of course evil.  But it's mundane everyday evil.  Newsworthy?  I could walk down my street knocking on doors and I'd find someone who who believes that the Jews control the world, the media, the banking industry, or whatever.  We're a nation of bigots.  One more or less isn't news.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 7, 2010)

Stone isn't Jewish, if his mother had been he would have been too. Having a Jewish father doesn't make you Jewish.

To me, the fact that people think we control the media isn't boring and it's not common, it's worrying. How long do you think it is between thinking the Jews control things to people wanting to and actually killing them? Not nearly as long as you think.

Anti Semitism may be mundane to the people who don't suffer from it, it's far from boring having to cope with it, its horrific and it needs fighting not accepting.


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Stone isn't Jewish, if his mother had been he would have been too. Having a Jewish father doesn't make you Jewish.
> .


 
Maybe not Jewish faith but definately 50% Jewish ancestry.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 7, 2010)

James Kovacich said:


> Maybe not Jewish faith but definately 50% Jewish ancestry.


 
Well, _that_ makes a difference.

 What's faith got to do with it? 

If Judaism is a religion having Jewish father means nothing. If being Jewish means we are a race then he has Jewish ancestry along with a lot of other people. It still means nothing as Jewish law says he's not Jewish so he's not Jewish. As far as his mother and father are concerned..... they obviously didn't raise him properly.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sorry if I was being confusing. STONE is Jewish on his father's side. His mother was Roman Catholic, and he was raised a Christian.


 
Then Stone isn't a Jew. A Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. At least since the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.  



> You're demanding that people be as outraged as you are. They're not. Time to get over that.


 
I'm not demanding anything. I'm questioning. I also think it's _highly_ dangerous to ignore the subtle anti-Semitism of the left. It's much more insideous than the steryotypical raving lunatic. He can be easily ignored or ridiculed into irrelevance. Someone like Stone who appears at least somewhat intellectual and a darling of the media is not so easily dismissed by people who want to appear open-minded themselves.  



> The world is actually full of Antisemitism. As I posted not long ago in this thread, fully 10% of the US population believes that Jews control the media. It's common and it's boring. It's not news.


 
Not in the sense of appealing to the people's lowest common denominator, their purient intersts, so to speak. But it damn well is news in the sense that it's dangerous.  



> That's your opinion. I agree that antisemitism is much more dangerous, insidious, and horrible than drunken rantings about hummers and arson. However, the public is an ***. The public likes loud noise and shiny things. And the press sells whatever the public is buying. This should not come as a shock to you.


 
And sometimes the public needs to be confronted with what is actually important instead of giving them bread and circuses. While the idiot drunk can be an entertaining distraction at times you can't have a functioning society without actual news. 



> Also in the study I posted, it says that Democrats are much more likely to be antisemitic than Republicans. This is, however, just the most recent reversal of a long-standing trend the other way. So nobody gets the bye on this. No one's hands are clean.


 
I don't think anyone is imply that. 



> If you read history, you see that at the time of the ascent of Hitler, most of Europe and the UK and the USA had strong antisemitic movements within them. The USA was the LEADER in the Eugenics movement prior to the rise of the Third Reich. It was only the extreme barbarism of the Nazis that shocked the American public to the extent that it became very unpopular to be pro-Nazi or anti-Jew or pro-Eugenics.


 
This actually relates to my point. In America, Europe, even NAZI Germany anti-Semitism was fostered by the "intellectuals." In the 20th century (and even the 19th) eugenics was respectable, and is becoming more so today. 



> So no, nothing Gibson says shocks me, nor anything Stone says. Antisemitism is boring, stupid, asinine, and of course evil. But it's mundane everyday evil. Newsworthy? I could walk down my street knocking on doors and I'd find someone who who believes that the Jews control the world, the media, the banking industry, or whatever. We're a nation of bigots. One more or less isn't news.


 
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 7, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> . I also think it's _highly_ dangerous to ignore the subtle anti-Semitism of the left.
> 
> ,
> 
> Chris



 And the saintly right?  No racists there.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Stone isn't Jewish, if his mother had been he would have been too. Having a Jewish father doesn't make you Jewish.
> 
> To me, the fact that people think we control the media isn't boring and it's not common, it's worrying. How long do you think it is between thinking the Jews control things to people wanting to and actually killing them? Not nearly as long as you think.
> 
> Anti Semitism may be mundane to the people who don't suffer from it, it's far from boring having to cope with it, its horrific and it needs fighting not accepting.



I didn't suggest accepting it.  I said it is a boring story and banal evil.

And yes, it is common.  Fully 1/10 of the US population thinks Jews control the media.  That's common.  Evil, but common.

Yes, it does need to be fought.

And I'm aware that Jewish cultural descent is counted from the maternal side.  DNA doesn't care about Jewish culture,  it is what it is.  Stone's father was Jewish, he's half-Jewish by DNA.  That's just the way it is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Well, _that_ makes a difference.
> 
> What's faith got to do with it?
> 
> If Judaism is a religion having Jewish father means nothing. If being Jewish means we are a race then he has Jewish ancestry along with a lot of other people. It still means nothing as Jewish law says he's not Jewish so he's not Jewish. As far as his mother and father are concerned..... they obviously didn't raise him properly.



Bigots don't give a crap about Jewish culture or religion.  They hate Jews, and if Stone's father was Jewish, then he's Jewish - to them.  And by genetics, he is one-half Jewish.

Sorry,  you don't get to order your haters to hate you correctly.  They hate you the way they feel like hating you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> And the saintly right?  No racists there.



Nobody has a lock on it.  Let's not make this about left and right, m'kay?  Both sides have plenty of booger-eatin' morons who dislike Jews and blame them for all their ills.  At the moment, apparently the Democrats have more, but that's just a temporary aberration; the right has traditionally had more bigots.  But both sides,* both sides*, are chock-full of bigots.

All clear?


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Well, _that_ makes a difference.
> 
> What's faith got to do with it?
> 
> If Judaism is a religion having Jewish father means nothing. If being Jewish means we are a race then he has Jewish ancestry along with a lot of other people. It still means nothing as Jewish law says he's not Jewish so he's not Jewish. As far as his mother and father are concerned..... they obviously didn't raise him properly.


 
And what does American law say? He's 50% or 1/2 Jewish by international standards.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2010)

James Kovacich said:


> And what does American law say? He's 50% or 1/2 Jewish by international standards.



American law no longer gives percentages for racial self-identification.  By law, he's whatever he says he is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Then Stone isn't a Jew. A Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. At least since the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.



Bigots don't care.



> I'm not demanding anything. I'm questioning. I also think it's _highly_ dangerous to ignore the subtle anti-Semitism of the left. It's much more insideous than the steryotypical raving lunatic. He can be easily ignored or ridiculed into irrelevance. Someone like Stone who appears at least somewhat intellectual and a darling of the media is not so easily dismissed by people who want to appear open-minded themselves.



Then that's YOUR job.  The media will do what it does.  It doesn't care about confronting evil, it cares about selling newspapers or laundry detergent.



> Not in the sense of appealing to the people's lowest common denominator, their purient intersts, so to speak. But it damn well is news in the sense that it's dangerous.



Nobody cares.  You do, I do, but the majority of people?  Nada.



> And sometimes the public needs to be confronted with what is actually important instead of giving them bread and circuses. While the idiot drunk can be an entertaining distraction at times you can't have a functioning society without actual news.



You're not in charge of what the public needs.  The media isn't given the task of informing the citizenry of evil afoot.  It exists to serve itself, like any business.



> This actually relates to my point. In America, Europe, even NAZI Germany anti-Semitism was fostered by the "intellectuals." In the 20th century (and even the 19th) eugenics was respectable, and is becoming more so today.



The intellectuals and the common man both hated them some Jews.  Still do.

It's an insidious evil, it's a reflection of how horrible we as a race (the HUMAN race) can be towards each other, but it is what it is.  I don't propose doing nothing, but it's not the media's job to snap to because you think it needs to be confronted.  You want to confront, confront away.  I do.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nobody has a lock on it.  Let's not make this about left and right, m'kay?



 Agreed, and I quite admire your post on how pervasive racism is , not just anti-semitism...props.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Bigots don't give a crap about Jewish culture or religion. They hate Jews, and if Stone's father was Jewish, then he's Jewish - to them. And by genetics, he is one-half Jewish.
> 
> *Sorry, you don't get to order your haters to hate you correctly.* *They* *hate you the way they feel like hating you.[/*quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Bill Mattocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bigots don't give a crap about Jewish culture or religion. They hate Jews, and if Stone's father was Jewish, then he's Jewish - to them. And by genetics, he is one-half Jewish.
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Agreed, and I quite admire your post on how pervasive racism is , not just anti-semitism...props.



Sadly, the history of humanity is a history of us hating each other and blaming each other for our own problems.  No one wants to say _"I am in the mess I am in because of myself."_ Everything is someone else's fault.

This cuts across all cultures, all nations, all political subdivisions.  Everyone has someone to hate; it may be a minority of their population that does the hating, but it appears that there is no cure for it on a systemic basis.  We fight racism, bigotry, and hatred hand-to-hand and one-by-one.  We try to ensure that our laws create pillars that hatred cannot dash down.  We live by example and are unafraid of being hated ourselves for taking a principled stand.  That's all we can do.

I would love to say that one day we will live in a world without racism and without bigotry, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Stone and Gibson are bigots?  I am not really surprised.  The media treats Stone differently than it treats Gibson?  Well, given that the media panders to the lowest common denominator, that doesn't shock me either; Gibson is doing a fine job of public self-destruction at the moment; the public anxiously awaits his next performance.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 7, 2010)

okay, not sure exactly what Stone said but a google search came up with this...other sites omit the "Hitler as monster" quote.

Stone Article



> Earlier this year, Stone told assembled reporters during Winter TV Press Tour that his 10-hour documentary Showtime documentary entitled "The Secret History of America" will show that Adolf Hitler was "an easy scapegoat" and will help put the mass murderer in context.
> 
> "We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good.' [Hitler] is the product of a series of actions," Stone says. "It's cause and effect. People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII."
> 
> ...



  some of what he says I have read by historians ,  WW2 being an extension of WW1,  Hitler being admired by portions of British and American society (Lindbergh, Joesph P. Kennedy),  in fact I have read more than one biography of Churchill underlining the fact Churchill was a lone voice and marginalized for warning against Hitler. 

  Hitler rising to power with the approval of German industrialists is not new either.

   The Russians being the real heros of WW2 I have read as well (not that I agree with it).

  Where he goes wrong...at the end when he blames the US obsession with the Holocaust on the Jewish dominated media.  Well there is no Jewish dominated media (no more than a liberal dominated media imo).

  About the only rationalization I can make is perhaps he is talking about the millions of Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin (  estimates range from 7 to 9 million ), plus Muslims, plus "peasants". This doesn't seem to be well known in North America....I myself only heard about it at about age 22 from the son of Ukrainian immigrants in Toronto, then found out more about it later.

  BTW: I have no dog in this fight but the enmity between Jews and Ukrainians seems to stem from this...the Ukrainians joined the Germans to fight the Russians...then what follows most of us know about. 

  Edit: just realized the whole Stalin/Ukrainian thing wasn't apparent in that link,  think I saw a couple of quotes from him on Stalin in another report.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 7, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > Bill didn't claim Stone was jewish, but that his father was jewish , his mother was Catholic and he was raised Catholic _in fact Bill has condemned anti-semitism and bigotry all through this thread and pointed out how commonplace it is._
> ...


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Ramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Tez3 said:
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> What on earth are you chuntering about? Bill said Stone was Jewish I said he wasn't, Bill posted stuff I didn't understand and now you're doing it too! All I'm saying is that Stone isn't Jewish so I don't know why you think you have to tell me he's condemned anti-semitism etc, I know he has and what does that have to do with my correcting him on Stone not being Jewish?
> 
> Quote from Bill's post
> 
> ...



I initially said Stone's father was Jewish.  When others said I claimed Stone was Jewish and he's not because it's his father and not his mother, I said that people who hate Jews don't care that Jews consider Jewish descent to be from the mother's side only. People who hate Jews consider anyone with Jewish ancestors to be Jewish.  And from a DNA basis, a parent is a parent.  DNA doesn't care what Jewish law is with regard to if a person is of Jewish descent or not.

I probably should have said 'Jewish descent' and not "Jewish," and for that I apologize.  I fully realize that Jews consider descent from the mother's side and not the fathers.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 7, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ramirez said:
> ...


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Ramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Tez3 said:
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 7, 2010)

Come along, ladies and gentlemen.  

I know this is the Study and therefore things are a little less well mannered here and I also know that, as with far too many topics, this is one where people find it hard to keep their emotions in check.

But it does not carry the discussion forward to take the approach of battering on each other, especially when it seems to have been the result of a misreading of what was said previously.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ramirez said:
> ...


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 8, 2010)

BTW:

  Stone has apologized ,  twice....so we have one "liberal" condemning his remarks,  Stone himself.

http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/Entertainment/Article.aspx?id=182995


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 8, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> BTW:
> 
> Stone has apologized , twice....so we have one "liberal" condemning his remarks, Stone himself.
> 
> http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/Entertainment/Article.aspx?id=182995


 

He got caught saying what he believes, and now is trying to do damage control.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 8, 2010)

I really wouldn't think that Oliver Stone gives a flying hawumptafudge about what most of the world thinks.  

It is one trait of his that I have ever admired, given his chosen path of film-making.  That might seem at odds with my reverence for polite interaction and reasonable sensitivity to other peoples feelings but when it comes to the producers of thought-provoking media, I far prefer them to offend than offer up something bland and 'content-free'.

Thinking about it, didn't I say much the same thing when the forum was frothing for blood about Gibson's "The Passion of Christ"?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 9, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> And the saintly right? No racists there.


 
Oh, for the love of Pete, please read my posts. I've already agreed that there are racists on both ends of the political spectrum. My last post stated that I agreed with Bill on that point. 

The point of my posts is that it's inherently more dangerous when racism is "dressed up" to appear somehow intellectual. No where in my posts can you get that I think the right has no racists. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 9, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> The point of my posts is that it's inherently more dangerous when racism is "dressed up" to appear somehow intellectual. No where in my posts can you get that I think the right has no racists.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 

Well said. When neo-Nazis parade on the streets shouting "kill the Jews", everybody pretty much condems them.

But when people start with the 'in context'. 're-examine the evidence', and all that other horse-crap, it is a lot more insidious and dangerous. And that's why you'l see people like Tez and me fly off on those, because we know what happenned, very personnaly.


----------

