View Full Version : Who is worse: Mel Gibson or Eric Holder?
I just noticed that there is a poll over at townhall.com asking who is worse... the results are:
Mel Gibson (1 %)
Eric Holder (54 %)
The NAACP (12 %)
The New Black Panther Party (23 %)
Roman Polanski (10 %)
http://townhall.com/
CarlosDJackal
07-19-10, 09:14
Holder - he is the head of the Department of Justice and what little brain matter he had to begin with has been replaced by that of a Lemming!! :jester:
montanadave
07-19-10, 11:27
So the most popular choice is an ant-semitic, homophobic, misogynistic, abusive alcoholic prone to uncontrolled rage?
Says more about the people voting than those being voted on.
So the most popular choice is an ant-semitic, homophobic, misogynistic, abusive alcoholic prone to uncontrolled rage?
.
Mel's behavior appears to be alcohol-induced. That is not an excuse, but aids in understanding.
The Black Panthers call for the murder of white people based on their race. Definitely worse than Mel.
The NAACP is an organization pursuing a platform specifically designed to be racist, in contrast to Mel's impulsive outbursts. So the NAACP is also worse than Mel.
Eric Holder has corrupted an entire branch of the U.S. government to pursue policies which favor one race over others. Not quite as bad ad the Khmer Rouge, but again worse than a drunken outburst.
Gutshot John
07-19-10, 11:36
Says more about the people voting than those being voted on.
What that they're smart enough to recognize when a person's failings have absolutely zero impact on their daily life or society as a whole? Who gives a wet fart about a celib-retard?
So they interpreted "worse" as meaning which has the biggest deleterious effect on their lives and society? What does that say about them? Enlighten us.
Try to keep things in perspective.
rickrock305
07-19-10, 11:41
Wow, you mean one of the top Democrats is coming up last on a largely conservative website? SHOCKING!
PrivateCitizen
07-19-10, 11:43
Holder. He has the use of force via .gov to backup his assertions and opinions. Mel just rants and has no effect on my life in any way
Gutshot John
07-19-10, 11:48
Wow, you mean one of the top Democrats is coming up last on a largely conservative website? SHOCKING!
About as shocking as your predictable response.
How do you explain the lower scores for the NAACP and NBP on such a "conservative" website?
It might have something to do with the Justice Department white-washing an investigation, refusing to properly interrogate would-be terrorists, releasing russian spies and otherwise engaging in policies that subvert the very justice they're charged with upholding.
Just a thought.
At least the stuff Mel says is funny and can be made into awesome prank phone calls, the stuff Eric Holder says can be scary.
Roman Polanski "only" raped one girl, Holder has the power to rape us all.
QuietShootr
07-19-10, 12:01
So the most popular choice is an ant-semitic, homophobic, misogynistic, abusive alcoholic prone to uncontrolled rage?
Says more about the people voting than those being voted on.
Wow, it didn't take long for the White Guilt brigade to show up.
VooDoo6Actual
07-19-10, 12:04
HOLDER.
So the most popular choice is an ant-semitic, homophobic, misogynistic, abusive alcoholic prone to uncontrolled rage?
When compared to blatant racists who advocate murder and violence...yes Mel would be the more popular choice.
So the most popular choice is an ant-semitic, homophobic, misogynistic, abusive alcoholic prone to uncontrolled rage?
Says more about the people voting than those being voted on.
Please show me non-drunken evidence that Mel Gibson is all the things you claim he is. He may be, but things said while drunk in no way show that. Many of the epithets attributed to him are used by people as ways of hurting others, not at face value, but as cultural epithets.
Ie, calling some one the n-word or a "fag" or a "bitch" or something as often as not is not used to show racial disdain or homophobia as much as to cause hurt to someone due to the cultural implications of the words rather than really believing them at face value.
This is a cultural thing that most people have absorbed. Being mad and drunk and saying such things is just as likely to only be an attempt to hurt someone as it is to be a reflection of actual values and beliefs.
The people with whom he associates, and his actions, even when no one is looking, when not drunk, are more likely to reveal someone's true attitudes and beliefs than when said in a drunken rage.
Have you ever said things to someone you love, when you are mad or drunk or whatever, that you did not really mean but were trying to hurt them in your rage? I bet most of us have (either when mad, or drunk, or both). I know I have (and I don't drink, I was just mad).
Holder/NAACP/NBP calculatingly use race and racial tensions to advance their political agendas.
Given that measuring stick, it is obvious that Mel Gibson is the least of our worries and the least racist of the bunch.
Why are there 2 threads about Mel Gibson on M4C?!?! :help:
Eric Holder.
How many men and women have fought and died for this country so people can vote.
Mel Gibson
Actor-who cares, there's probably hundreds of thousands joe shmoes with his same views.
NAACP, New Black Panther both racist organizations, different paths.
CarlosDJackal
07-19-10, 15:51
So the most popular choice is an ant-semitic, homophobic, misogynistic, abusive alcoholic prone to uncontrolled rage?
Says more about the people voting than those being voted on.
Huh? Mel only got 1% - how is the "the most popular choice"? :blink:
Mel's rant and racial slurs are nothing more than the ramblings of another Hollyweird Actor gone nuts. What he says or do has no bearing on my life. The Black Panther and the NAACP are both racists organizations - the only difference is how they execute their racist agendas.
Eric Holder is ultimately more dangerous than any of them because of the position he was APPOINTED to. For all we know he could have already instructed the FBI or some other alphabet agency to record everything we post on M3Carbine.net just because we dare say anything negative about him and his master.
QuietShootr
07-19-10, 16:01
Huh? Mel only got 1% - how is the "the most popular choice"? :blink:
Mel's rant and racial slurs are nothing more than the ramblings of another Hollyweird Actor gone nuts. What he says or do has no bearing on my life. The Black Panther and the NAACP are both racists organizations - the only difference is how they execute their racist agendas.
Eric Holder is ultimately more dangerous than any of them because of the position he was APPOINTED to. For all we know he could have already instructed the FBI or some other alphabet agency to record everything we post on M3Carbine.net just because we dare say anything negative about him and his master.
You think they don't? :dirol:
Nathan_Bell
07-19-10, 16:06
Huh? Mel only got 1% - how is the "the most popular choice"? :blink:
Mel's rant and racial slurs are nothing more than the ramblings of another Hollyweird Actor gone nuts. What he says or do has no bearing on my life. The Black Panther and the NAACP are both racists organizations - the only difference is how they execute their racist agendas.
Eric Holder is ultimately more dangerous than any of them because of the position he was APPOINTED to. For all we know he could have already instructed the FBI or some other alphabet agency to record everything we post on M3Carbine.net just because we dare say anything negative about him and his master.
Now that they have power, they are not even that much different about how they are racists.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/19/breitbart-hits-naacp-with-promised-video-of-racism/
[quote\]"We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance."[quote]
rickrock305
07-19-10, 20:27
Why are there 2 threads about Mel Gibson on M4C?!?! :help:
:D agreed!
the sad part is they each have more responses than, for example, the Goldman Sachs thread which is far more important. sad state of affairs when we'd rather discuss mel gibson than a company who is systematically tearing apart our country for their own greed and profit.
ChicagoTex
07-19-10, 20:52
As pointed out by several, including myself, in the earlier Mel thread - for all his psycho ranting, Mel has no power.
He holds no office, controls no institution, and has no funding for his politics. He's the most popular choice because he's by far the safest choice.
Eric Holder, on the other hand, holds the most power. I'd have voted against him myself in this poll, but the funny thing is, it's not his alleged racism that worries me, it's his obvious gross incompetence.
The NBPs are pretty heinous in that they do advocate violence, but are still fairly small, so I don't take them particularly seriously.
The NAACP doesn't worry me. Yes, they're a racially based organization, but not a violent one and last I checked it wasn't a crime to run a non-violent racial advocacy group. I don't think they're really necessary in today's context, but they also don't concern me on any meaningful level.
Gutshot John
07-19-10, 20:53
:the sad part is they each have more responses than, for example, the Goldman Sachs thread which is far more important. sad state of affairs when we'd rather discuss mel gibson than a company who is systematically tearing apart our country for their own greed and profit.
And who cut the deal with Goldman Sachs? Could it be the current administration? :secret:
Certainly wasn't Mel.
I'm just sayin'. :blink:
thopkins22
07-19-10, 21:09
Now that they have power, they are not even that much different about how they are racists.
Watching the whole video that's at the link I tend to think that a lot of that is taken out of context. She went on to say, "That's when it was revealed to me, that it's about poor versus those who have. It's not so much about white and black. It is about white and black, but it's not...you know it opened my eyes."
I believe she was saying that she entered a situation with her own prejudices and came to the realization that poor black people and poor white people face the same struggles.
Is she racist? Probably. But given the context I think she actually stepped outside of thought process that most in the room are probably operating with.
Then again, to me the whole point is moot because nobody should be getting federal mini bailouts for their farm, white or black.
thopkins22
07-19-10, 21:10
woops
So the most popular choice is an ant-semitic, homophobic, misogynistic, abusive alcoholic prone to uncontrolled rage?
Says more about the people voting than those being voted on.
What the hell are you talking about?
What that they're smart enough to recognize when a person's failings have absolutely zero impact on their daily life or society as a whole? Who gives a wet fart about a celib-retard?
So they interpreted "worse" as meaning which has the biggest deleterious effect on their lives and society? What does that say about them? Enlighten us.
Try to keep things in perspective.
Thank you.
About as shocking as your predictable response.
How do you explain the lower scores for the NAACP and NBP on such a "conservative" website?
It might have something to do with the Justice Department white-washing an investigation, refusing to properly interrogate would-be terrorists, releasing russian spies and otherwise engaging in policies that subvert the very justice they're charged with upholding.
Just a thought.
Thank you for this as well.
Because no one has had the sense yet to kill this ****ing general discussion board.
Why are there 2 threads about Mel Gibson on M4C?!?! :help:
The NAACP doesn't worry me. Yes, they're a racially based organization, but not a violent one and last I checked it wasn't a crime to run a non-violent racial advocacy group. I don't think they're really necessary in today's context, but they also don't concern me on any meaningful level.
Really?!? They concern the shit out of me with their benevolent racism.
FoxNews.com
- July 19, 2010
Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer
A video has surfaced showing an Agriculture Department official regaling an NAACP audience with a story about how she withheld help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy 末 video that now has forced the official to resign
fox news
Days after the NAACP clashed with Tea Party members over allegations of racism, a video has surfaced showing an Agriculture Department official regaling an NAACP audience with a story about how she withheld help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy 末 video that now has forced the official to resign.
Shirley Sherrod, the department's Georgia director of Rural Development, is shown in the clip describing "the first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm." Sherrod, who is black, claimed the farmer took a long time trying to show he was "superior" to her. The audience laughed as she described how she determined his fate.
"He had to come to me for help. What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him," she said. "I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land 末 so I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough."
The Agriculture Department announced Monday, shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video, that Sherrod had resigned.
"There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a written statement. "We have been working hard through the past 18 months to reverse the checkered civil rights history at the department and take the issue of fairness and equality very seriously.
Sherrod explained in the video that, at the time, she assumed the state or national Department of Agriculture had referred the white farmer to her. In order to ensure that the farmer could report back that she was indeed helpful, she said she took him to see "one of his own" 末 a white lawyer.
"I figured that if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him," she said.
The video clip was first posted by BigGovernment.com. The clip is dated March 27 from an NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.
FoxNews.com is seeking a response from both the NAACP and the USDA. The clip adds to the firestorm of debate over the NAACP's decision to approve a resolution at its convention last week accusing some Tea Party activists of racism 末 a charge Tea Party leaders deny.
In a second clip from the same event posted online, Sherrod appeared to urge black job seekers to find work at the Department of Agriculture because the federal government won't lay people off.
"There are jobs at USDA and many times there are no people of color to fill those jobs because we shy away from agriculture. We hear the word agriculture and think, why are we working in the fields?" she said. "You've heard of a lot of layoffs. Have you heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job? That's all I need to say."
ChicagoTex
07-20-10, 00:49
Last I checked, the NAACP has never published any statements suggesting White (or any other color) farmers get screwed over.
I don't see the connection.
Belmont31R
07-20-10, 01:24
Because no one has had the sense yet to kill this ****ing general discussion board.
GD can be good but its a symptom of society when celebrities are important.....my wife knows now I will roll my eyes when she brings up drama. I hate drama be it political, celebrity or familial. ------> :rolleyes:
John_Wayne777
07-20-10, 07:09
Why are there 2 threads about Mel Gibson on M4C?!?! :help:
...because I've restrained the urge to declare jihad on GD threads I don't like, as the management probably wouldn't appreciate it.
Nathan_Bell
07-20-10, 08:08
Watching the whole video that's at the link I tend to think that a lot of that is taken out of context. She went on to say, "That's when it was revealed to me, that it's about poor versus those who have. It's not so much about white and black. It is about white and black, but it's not...you know it opened my eyes."
I believe she was saying that she entered a situation with her own prejudices and came to the realization that poor black people and poor white people face the same struggles.
Is she racist? Probably. But given the context I think she actually stepped outside of thought process that most in the room are probably operating with.
Then again, to me the whole point is moot because nobody should be getting federal mini bailouts for their farm, white or black.
Well she resigned over it, so I am guessing that more folks agreed with my opinion that she was being racist and that the NAACP group she was speaking to was giving her approbation, than were looking at it in the manner that you were.
Why are there 2 threads about Mel Gibson on M4C?!?! :help:
Good point... there should be at least 3 or 4.
...I'll get to work.
Because no one has had the sense yet to kill this ****ing general discussion board.
If it bothers you so much, why do you come here? Self censorship works!
Last I checked, the NAACP has never published any statements suggesting White (or any other color) farmers get screwed over.
I don't see the connection.
The connection is this race based organization still supported such actions and the government employee who engaged in the actions. And this while at the same time denouncing groups like the Tea Party as "racist."
The fact that they never published a statement to that fact is irrelevant.
rickrock305
07-20-10, 16:41
And who cut the deal with Goldman Sachs? Could it be the current administration? :secret:
Certainly wasn't Mel.
I'm just sayin'. :blink:
The SEC
Gutshot John
07-20-10, 19:59
The SEC
Right which is part of which branch of government? :blink:
rickrock305
07-20-10, 20:25
Right which is part of which branch of government? :blink:
The executive branch. Whats your point? Do you know that 4 out of five of the SEC commissioners were not even appointed by Obama?
Heavy Metal
07-20-10, 20:33
The top dogs at Goldman Sachs are big-time Obama contributors. That should tell you all you need to know.
thopkins22
07-20-10, 20:40
The executive branch. Whats your point? Do you know that 4 out of five of the SEC commissioners were not even appointed by Obama?
Oh. But three of them are democrats huh?
rickrock305
07-20-10, 20:52
The top dogs at Goldman Sachs are big-time Obama contributors. That should tell you all you need to know.
They're big time contributors to both sides of the isle.
Gutshot John
07-20-10, 21:07
Do you know that 4 out of five of the SEC commissioners were not even appointed by Obama?
Do you think that matters?
Do you really think the Goldman Sachs deal was made without Obama's ok?
You can't be that naive.
rickrock305
07-20-10, 21:11
Do you think that matters?
Nope, i think it doesn't matter who is in office. Goldman Sachs is still going to win.
They're big time contributors to both sides of the isle.
Historically they are almost 2:1 for the Democrats in contributions over the last 20 years
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000085
Gutshot John
07-20-10, 21:26
Nope, i think it doesn't matter who is in office. Goldman Sachs is still going to win.
It's funny how you dance around...Only because the SEC, read Obama, let them. It's also funny how you proffer the erstwhile excuse that "it doesn't matter" when it's a Dem.
Goldman could easily have been torn apart and liquidated, never to be heard or seen from again. Certainly more than two days of revenue was possible. It's a bad joke just like Obama and the Democrats.
To demolish the rest of your assertions:
Campaign contributions... Goldman gave far more to Dems than Republicans.
Goldman Contributions by Party (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=d000000085)
They were also the second highest donor to Obama by almost four times what they gave McCain.
Goldman Contributions to Obama (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424)
Goldman Contributions to McCain (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424)
But of course you will pretend it had no effect on Obama's reasoning which of course would be disingenuous.
rickrock305
07-20-10, 21:47
It's funny how you dance around...Only because the SEC, read Obama, let them. It's also funny how you proffer the erstwhile excuse that "it doesn't matter" when it's a Dem.
Goldman could easily have been torn apart and liquidated, never to be heard or seen from again. Certainly more than two days of revenue was possible. It's a bad joke just like Obama and the Democrats.
Nobody is dancing. Goldman Sachs has been winning long before Obama came into office, under both Democrats and Republicans. Did you forget about TARP? They received a 10 billion dollar preferred stock investment from the U.S Treasury under a Republican president. I had a problem with it then, and I have a problem with it now. Did you miss this thread? https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=58316
The issue is not one party or the other, they're all rotten. Your attempt at spinning this as a partisan issue is really misguided and only further serves the interests of the people who perpetuate this fraud on the American people.
To demolish the rest of your assertions:
Campaign contributions... Goldman gave far more to Dems than Republicans.
I never said they didn't. :confused:
They were also the second highest donor to Obama by almost four times what they gave McCain.
True, but don't think things would have been any different under McCain. They're still his fourth highest contributor, right behind three other banking firms.
But of course you will pretend it had no effect on Obama's reasoning which of course would be disingenuous.
HUH!?!?! Of course it had an effect on Obama's politics . But Obama didn't hand out this decision, the SEC did. And unfortunately the SEC is, and has been for some time, in bed with Goldman Sachs. Thats not the fault of Obama or any president in general and goes back many years. It is the result of Goldman Sachs employees being appointed to high level Fed and government positions, as high up as White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of Treasury. The fox is guarding the hen house. Your attempt to turn this into a partisan sh*t-fest is more than a little lame.
GSJ is not trying to make this a partisan sh*tfest as you put it. He is trying to point out that Obama let this through. Obama owns it. G-S and its people make a lot of donations, mostly to Democrats, for this kind of treatment.
Would McCain have done the same thing? Probably -- we will never know. But Obama DID do it and owns it.
Gutshot John
07-21-10, 13:29
But Obama DID do it and owns it.
Not only does he own it, it flies in the face of his cynical campaign against "politics as usual."
And now he wonders why he is being held to HIS own standards? :help:
Even still his AGs blatant disregard for justice points to a disturbing trend within the administration that makes the significance of Mel Gibson laughable.
The "republicans did it too" excuse is wearing kind of thin.
ChicagoTex
07-21-10, 18:20
The "republicans did it too" excuse is wearing kind of thin.
Idealogically, yes. We should be able to do much better than the candidates either of the major parties have fielded in the past few decades.
The argument does have practical value, however, in reminding folks that are eagerly awaiting the next presidential election so they can vote for whoever isn't Obama and "stick it to 'em" is ultimately, in all likelihood, just gonna be more of the continuing trend of the electorate sticking it to themselves.
One thing I'm absolutely positive of: no matter who the next president is, Goldman Sachs is going to be unharmed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.