33rd Degree Scottish Rite Mason Michael Richards Loses It...

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Gibson made a mistake so are you campaigning for his innocence?


I am. He can say whatever he wants.

And so can you, like....



The chosen people believe they are above the law and morals of the rest of us it appears.




posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Gibson made a mistake so are you campaigning for his innocence?


I am. He can say whatever he wants.

And so can you, like....



The chosen people believe they are above the law and morals of the rest of us it appears.




Yes and what problem do you have with the truth?

The world has seen a man on stage in public of a certain background say that if he had his way he would kill certain people based on what they are and not who they are. He also desires this based on his ego being bruised.

He stepped beyond the line and he must be severely punished or many people will have no more faith in the system whatsoever.

Maybe that is what the elites of the world desire.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
The Grand Lodge I belong to recognizes Prince Hall, and members from both Grand Lodges routinely attend Lodge meetings together. My Lodge has several African American members, all Initiated, Passed, and Raised in our Lodge.

Not all Grand Lodges recognize Prince Hall, not all Lodges would vote favorably on an African American Candidate... It's not uncommon for personal preferences to enter into the voting process.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
He is also a freemason and jewish.


Good one, jackass.

You're doing the very same thing that you called for the guy's head for doing which is targeting somebody different than you.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Alright, let's can the attitude here.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
He is also a freemason and jewish.


Good one, jackass.

You're doing the very same thing that you called for the guy's head for doing which is targeting somebody different than you.


Really? I'm not advocating someone be killed or skinned alive or hung?

It has nothing to do about people being different it is about hypocrisy.

The Gibson affair is a great example of this where it is okay for them to attack our smallest transgressions but they can laugh off anything they do.

I won't stand for it.





[edit on 21-11-2006 by denythestatusquo]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Hypocrisy which you're displaying.

You won't stand for it?

What exactly are you going to do about it?

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If there are limits for one person, there are limits for all. If there aren't limits for some, there aren't limits for all. Simple as that.

I don't think the man's interests, occupation, education, or religion are relevant here, so, to avoid being labeled a hypocrite yourself, why don't you leave that out of your argument? As long as you're implying freedom of speech has it's limits, I think it'd be wise to follow those limits yourself.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Yes and what problem do you have with the truth?


None. I was serious when I said that. I didn't know Kramer was jewish, and I'm perfectly okay with you using the term "the chosen people" in a sarcastic manner. I'm not a jew, just this wekend I laughed my @ss off at the expense of the jews when I watched Borat, and even if I was jewish I really wouldn't care less. By your bringing up Mel Gibson and such, I take it you're a christian (could be wrong, happens from time to time but not much, lol) and your sarcastic use of "the chosen people" is kind of like a child arguing with another over who the parents (or god) likes best.



The world has seen a man on stage in public of a certain background say that if he had his way he would kill certain people based on what they are and not who they are. He also desires this based on his ego being bruised.


Well, his background has nothing to do with him being human, and "the world" hasn't seen that man on stage for some time now. As for being angry and wishing bad things on people, well I must admit, when I'm stuck in traffic I start wishing for nuclear missiles to take out everybody on the road, even if it meant I die too just because I'm so mad about traffic, but once i cool off I don't want that anymore...people say stupid things out of anger.



He stepped beyond the line and he must be severely punished or many people will have no more faith in the system whatsoever.


What line did he step beyond that he should be "punished"? He didn't threaten anybody. People have the right to insult whomever, whenever they wish. What can the system do here? If the system steps in and takes away or right to free speech, there's a much bigger problem.



Maybe that is what the elites of the world desire.


Yeah, maybe you're right there, maybe they do desire to control what we can say...



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush
Hypocrisy which you're displaying.

You won't stand for it?

What exactly are you going to do about it?

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If there are limits for one person, there are limits for all. If there aren't limits for some, there aren't limits for all. Simple as that.

I don't think the man's interests, occupation, education, or religion are relevant here, so, to avoid being labeled a hypocrite yourself, why don't you leave that out of your argument? As long as you're implying freedom of speech has it's limits, I think it'd be wise to follow those limits yourself.


You said:

"If there are limits for one person, there are limits for all."

If you can prove to me that that statement is valid then you have won the argument.

But there is a difference between saying something and getting away with it and saying something and being roasted alive for saying it isn't there?

Richards background matters like the comments he made.

If you would wave off what he said as acceptable then I'm going to expose him for what he REALLY is. If he is going to attack someone for what they are then he deserves the same disrespect.

Why cannot you see this?



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Richards background matters like the comments he made.


And the comments he made really had nothing to do with his background or him being jewish, I really don't remember heavy jewish involvement in the slavery of the blacks, or their racial persecution. He was speaking as a white man, not a jew.

Also, he is not getting away with anything like you seem to imply....



Jerry Seinfeld, who had issued a statement saying he was "sick over this horrible, horrible mistake" and calling it offensive, was scheduled as a Letterman guest Monday. He encouraged Richards to make a satellite appearance to talk about the incident, a CBS publicist said.
www.cnn.com...



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
The Freemasons aren't ones to be all inclusive. They may endorse this as a membership pledge or something. When did Freemasons allow Jews into thier member ranks?



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Richards background matters like the comments he made.


And the comments he made really had nothing to do with his background or him being jewish, I really don't remember heavy jewish involvement in the slavery of the blacks, or their racial persecution. He was speaking as a white man, not a jew.

Also, he is not getting away with anything like you seem to imply....



Jerry Seinfeld, who had issued a statement saying he was "sick over this horrible, horrible mistake" and calling it offensive, was scheduled as a Letterman guest Monday. He encouraged Richards to make a satellite appearance to talk about the incident, a CBS publicist said.
www.cnn.com...



If Richards can attack somebody for what they are then he is attacking others from WHAT HE IS.

Despite what you believe Jews were heavily involved in the slave trade in fact but I doubt that has been a topic of discussion on this website. An example of this is the Ethopian Falasha's.

He attacked those people for what they are so he should be equally attacked for what he is, if what he did is okay to some people here.

Then what is it? Right or wrong?

Richards is getting off.. nobody is demanding that he be ruined and the damage control machine is whirling like I've rarely seen it work to try and prop up this guy and save him.

Furthermore, it is amazing the number of people on the web fighting fiercely to defend him. Why all the damage control appearances and the cult controlled media offering up free time for this creep to do it? Desperate damage control.

I say he gets off completely.

No lawsuits, so charges, no time, no hassle. Minimal loss of income and most of all I see him benefiting from this... they will reward him for saying this. He will benefit in the long-run. Wait and see.

Yes he will benefit just like the bigot Borat just made a cool $100 million by doing anything and everything wrong in the face of the system.



[edit on 21-11-2006 by denythestatusquo]

[edit on 21-11-2006 by denythestatusquo]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Here is what I want to know.Why is it that everytime a "Freemason" does something like this,it's all of a sudden a reflection on the Freemasons? Why wasn't Mel Gibson's outburst against Jews all of sudden a reflection on Catholics or Christians?

How is it that a handful of men's actions,just because they are affiliated with a certain group,all of a sudden a reflection on the whole group? It's rather ridiculous to me.


Actually I'm pretty sure these same looneys already did that when they considered "Passion of Christ" to be anti-semetic.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
You said:

"If there are limits for one person, there are limits for all."

If you can prove to me that that statement is valid then you have won the argument.


What's not valid about it? You think that one person can get away with attacking somebody's race, but another one can't? That's basically what you're saying.


If he is going to attack someone for what they are then he deserves the same disrespect.


And you have no idea what those hecklers said to him. So, if we go along with what you said, and those hecklers made offensive comments, then Michael Richards was justified in saying what he said.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Really he could have verbally assassinated his hecklers without resorting to racial epithets.., very politically incorrect.

I doubt he meant it seriously. Does anybody still really believe there's different races? When it asks what race you are on a form, I always write - human. That's the only thing that makes sense.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
While I don't agree with his attititude or the outburst at all and DO find it distatsteful and inappropriate, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If you heckle a comedian or musician or anyone of that nature, you're going to eventually come across an instance like this. I find it very discouraging that the media is centering on his disgusting outburst but not at what the hecklers were doing or saying. And while I am sure the hecklers weren't being as blatantly offensive as Richards, what kind of an impolite, stupid and mannerless person would heckle a comedian? It's uncalled for and ruins the show for the other audience members. If you don't like the show, keep your mouth shut and politely leave.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
If Richards can attack somebody for what they are then he is attacking others from WHAT HE IS.


Yeah, a human being. Just like the people he is attacking for what they are, attack other people for what what they are, from WHAT THEY ARE. Human beings. We all attack differences, it's our nature.



Despite what you believe Jews were heavily involved in the slave trade in fact but I doubt that has been a topic of discussion on this website. An example of this is the Ethopian Falasha's.


Perhaps you should make a thread on it in the appropriate forum, sounds interesting, and I wasn't aware of that.



He attacked those people for what they are so he should be equally attacked for what he is, if what he did is okay to some people here.


Sure, that's the beauty of it. Attack away! You have that right.



Then what is it? Right or wrong?


Depends on who you ask. It's neither to me.



Richards is getting off.. nobody is demanding that he be ruined and the damage control machine is whirling like I've rarely seen it work to try and prop up this guy and save him.


Who are you comparing him to? I didn't see anybody demanding Mel Gibson be ruined, and I felt the same exact way about what he said....



Furthermore, it is amazing the number of people on the web fighting fiercely to defend him. Why all the damage control appearances and the cult controlled media offering up free time for this creep to do it? Desperate damage control.


Desperate damage control? Are you serious? Do you have ANY idea how gladly many many factions of the media would have freed up time for Gibson after his tirade? It's all about ratings, the media has been all over this whole thing, and he's nowhere near as big as Mel Gibson.



No lawsuits, so charges, no time, no hassle. Minimal loss of income and most of all I see him benefiting from this... they will reward him for saying this. He will benefit in the long-run. Wait and see.


What should the charges be? What law did he break? Mel Gibson was driving drunk, what is Kramer's crime? And no, he will not benefit from this, please give me an explanation as to how you think he will benefit.



Yes he will benefit just like the bigot Borat just made a cool $100 million by doing anything and everything wrong in the face of the system.


That movie was great. My stomach still hurts I laughed so hard. And what system are you referring to?



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Yes he will benefit just like the bigot Borat just made a cool $100 million by doing anything and everything wrong in the face of the system.


That movie was funny as hell



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush
That movie was funny as hell


Yeah, it was. I loved the running of the jews, and when the female laid a jew egg. That was f-ing hillarious.

I don't understand what is meant by Borat being a bigot...he is a fictional character played by a jewish actor....



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by DickBinBush
That movie was funny as hell


Yeah, it was. I loved the running of the jews, and when the female laid a jew egg. That was f-ing hillarious.

I don't understand what is meant by Borat being a bigot...he is a fictional character played by a jewish actor....


That was hilarious..and the part where he get's out of the RV thing with those three guys when he's all upset and he throws his bag down with the rooster in it or whatever the hell it was.


And..him and others are just being critical of the movie because they can't simply just find something funny..they have to take it all seriously.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join