Audio: Mel Gibson even more insane than thought (allegedly!)

posted at 4:15 pm on July 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

The good news? This’ll end up inspiring a classic “South Park,” not to mention a million amateur techno mash-ups on YouTube. The horrifying news? When he threatens to take a bat to her skull and then plant her in a rose garden, you’ll fully believe he’s capable of it. It’s that bad. I don’t know what his damage is — the last time he went nuts he blamed it on booze, although his speech here sure doesn’t sound slurred — but after eight minutes of profane rage, it’s clear that Grigorieva’s right about him needing medication. Look out for the snippet along the way when he complains about feeling no spiritual connection with his ex-wife. Really, Mad Max? The ex wasn’t into burying people in rose gardens?

This guy’s career is now the least of his worries, but for the record, his new flick with Jodie Foster is naturally in big trouble. Which is too bad, because if ever there was an opportune moment for a movie about Mel Gibson dealing with his issues with women in a palpably insane manner, this is it. Exit question: Who would have guessed five years ago that Tom Cruise would end up as the comparatively sane, sober one among Hollywood’s A-list leading men? Click the image to listen.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3

No one is above scrutiny.

Bizarro No. 1 on July 14, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Does that mean that you’ll allow her to be scrutinized?

No, it doesn’t, just like if someone asked me if I wanted Mug root beer or A&W, to which I’d reply, “A&W” while I really was wanting the Mug. :roll:

However, at this point in time, calling her a manipulative golddigger is offensively ridiculous, and possibly slanderous.

Why is it ridiculous? Because her love for Mel was obvious? Because she won’t attempt to get a dime from Mel?

It’s offensively ridiculous because asserting that she is a bad, selfish person w/o good evidence to back up such a claim only makes her accusers look guilty of what they are accusing her of.

Why do her accusers bother going down that path? Rorschach test, anyone?

Because she released this audio to the public for no apparent reason?

No apparent reason? Geez, why do you keep resisting the undeniable truth? He’s severely verbally abusive towards her, he apparently has violated her physically, and there is proof on tape that he threatened her with death, a murderous act he admitted to being capable of committing.

In light of that, why would anyone make her motivation a focus in this situation? (she had more of a right to go public with that conversation than than he did to abuse her; if she did it to prove she isn’t a liar and/or if it helps her get more money from him, good on her!) If you don’t know, I’ll tell you why – sick people do that when the brutal truth that hits too close to home is too painful for them to face directly i.e they are suffering from misplaced anger.

Slanderous? Are you sure you don’t mean libelous? Either way, Ha Ha!

Such pedantry is one sign that you know you have no rational leg to stand on with me.

Anyways, in a legal sense you’d be correct that “libel” would be the correct term instead of “slander,” but I wasn’t speaking legalese when I used “slander” – I used it in the sense of “an abusive attack on a person’s character or good name” which could mean either oral or non-oral. Do try again!

People who are focusing their disgust of the situation on her instead of the clearly deranged Gibson are showing that they aren’t mentally healthy themselves – blaming a victim for provoking her/his victimizer is sick.

Are you claiming that anyone that speculates anything negative on her is focusing their disgust of the situation on her?

Anything said negatively about her at this point in time in purely speculative, and possibly untrue.

She alone is the victim of abuse here as far as we know. So, when I see people wondering what kind of person she is and/or what she might have done to provoke him, I know they are missing the point that she didn’t do anything wrong to cause his abusiveness, and it’s not appropriate to believe that she might have. I say that they are missing the point because of some deficiency on their part.

What if someone isn’t disgusted by the the situation at all? Then they don’t have any disgust to focus, right?

Here’s where I stand: anyone who pays more attention to her than him in this situation is mentally unhealthy; anyone who isn’t disgusted by what he did in this situation is mentally unhealthy.

It might be a good idea to question your mental health for claiming that any negative comments about her equate to casting blame of the situation on her.

Because I believe that people who attempt to belittle what Mel did by defaming her without just cause have a mental problem means it might be a good idea to question my own mental health? LOL I feel like I am in the old USSR listening to Communist scum! :)

People with ulterior motives stupidly speculate about many unimportant and irrelevant issues on here. Get over it.

blink on July 14, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Awww, did I make someone who downplays abusive behavior uncomfortable? ROFL

FIFY btw…

Bizarro No. 1 on July 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Take Bill Clinton and John Edwards out and replace them with someone else. Now, how does if feel to be a crazy lunatic about this issue?

blink on July 14, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Your post here is also in the running for the most idiotic one yet!

How does it feel to be so impotent and useless? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM

just like if someone asked me if I wanted Mug root beer or A&W, to which I’d reply, “A&W” while I really was wanting the Mug. :roll:

Bizarro No. 1 on July 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM

So, you’ll allow scrutiny but claim that any scrutiny lacks “good” evidence and is somehow casting blame on her.

In light of that, why would anyone make her motivation a focus in this situation? (she had more of a right to go public with that conversation than than he did to abuse her;…

I didn’t say she didn’t have the right to go public.

Are you claiming that anyone that questions her motives for publicly releasing the audio (when she could have kept it between her, her lawyers, and law enforcement) are sick?

Why do you think she released the audio publicly? Is that question too sick for you to speculate?

why do you keep resisting the undeniable truth? He’s severely verbally abusive towards her, he apparently has violated her physically, and there is proof on tape that he threatened her with death, a murderous act he admitted to being capable of committing.

I don’t keep resisting any of those claims. I keep asking you why you’re bashing anyone that questions this woman at all.

I know they are missing the point that she didn’t do anything wrong

She might not have, but you certainly can’t make such a claim. You can claim that she didn’t do anything to justify certain behaviors, but you can’t make a blanket claim that she did nothing wrong because you don’t know. And your insistence about this leads reasonable people to question your rationality.

Here’s where I stand: anyone who pays more attention to her than him in this situation is mentally unhealthy; anyone who isn’t disgusted by what he did in this situation is mentally unhealthy.

Really, really? So a billion chinese are mentally unhealthy because they don’t give a rats ass about what Mel Gibson did in this situation? You really are a wacko.

Furthermore, given the amount of commenters blasting Mel, it’s not unreasonable for some people to think that they don’t need to contributed to the blasting. And it’s not unreasonable for some of those people to speculate about her in an unsaintly manner.

Remember, what you stated:

No one is above scrutiny.

Bizarro No. 1 on July 14, 2010 at 8:14 AM

I wasn’t speaking legalese when I used “slander”

I just wanted to make sure you weren’t attempting to claim that anyone was breaking the law. Thanks for that confirmation.

Because I believe that people who attempt to belittle what Mel did by defaming her without just cause have a mental problem means it might be a good idea to question my own mental health? LOL I feel like I am in the old USSR listening to Communist scum! :)

In a free society, others have as much of a right to question your mental health as you do to question there mental health.

Why would you equate such freedom to Communist USSR?

did I make someone who downplays abusive behavior uncomfortable?

Regardless of however you irrationally define downplay, I really don’t think your craziness has made anyone uncomfortable at all. But it is kinda sad that you think otherwise.

blink on July 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Your post here is also in the running for the most idiotic one yet!

Bizarro No. 1 on July 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Anyone rational that’s still reading this thread will certainly see the brilliance of my post. Obviously, you don’t fit this category.

How does it feel to be so impotent and useless?

I feel nothing except extremely powerful, strong, virile, potent, and capable as I always do.

Thanks for asking! :)

blink on July 14, 2010 at 5:12 PM

So, you’ll allow scrutiny but claim that any scrutiny lacks “good” evidence and is somehow casting blame on her.

blink on July 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Is that what I said, or anything close to that even? No, it wasn’t, but once again you twisted what I did say into what you wanted to see, a bad habit of yours you seem incapable of changing. We aren’t arguing on the same plane here, that’s for sure – we aren’t equally interested in what the other thinks/believes.

I read the rest of your post, and I can see it’s more of the same from you. Q: what’s the point of further discussion with someone like you who cares more about defending her/his beliefs than ascertaining whether those beliefs are true or not? A: there isn’t a worthwhile point for me, that’s certain.

I’ll tell you that I won’t go through and address the rest of what you typed because I truly do have better ways to spend my time than debating with someone like you who isn’t interested in respectable discussion (going for a walk just for the purpose of enjoying the outdoors for one example.) I don’t believe in indulging abusive people in denial nor their enablers, a group of people you definitely are a member of.

Of course, you’re free to go ahead and dispute my assessment of you, but that isn’t going to get me to talk to you, is it? Yes, I am stating that I don’t believe in your integrity as an intellectually honest person. Get over it if you don’t like it! Have a nice day, and goodbye! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 15, 2010 at 1:21 AM

Is that what I said, or anything close to that even?

Bizarro No. 1 on July 15, 2010 at 1:21 AM

No it wasn’t what you said. I said it. You can tell because the name, blink, appears just below it.

I didn’t twist anything that you said. I’m telling you what you are doing.

what’s the point of further discussion with someone like you who cares more about defending her/his beliefs than ascertaining whether those beliefs are true or not?

I’m not defending any beliefs. I’m criticizing you for irrationally casting stones at others on here.

there isn’t a worthwhile point for me, that’s certain…I’ll tell you that I won’t go through and address the rest of what you typed

Of course not. I continue to make you look worse with every exchange.

someone like you who isn’t interested in respectable discussion

In other words, you don’t like being called out for your nasty behavior on here.

I don’t believe in indulging abusive people in denial nor their enablers, a group of people you definitely are a member of.

I’m criticizing your behavior towards others in this thread, and you call me abusive? I have a feeling you see abusive people all the time and everywhere.

you’re free to go ahead and dispute my assessment of you,

Thanks for granting me permission.

but that isn’t going to get me to talk to you

Good, you’re very annoying.

Yes, I am stating that I don’t believe in your integrity as an intellectually honest person.

I’m never surprised by those known to be irrational.

goodbye!

I truly hope that is sincere.

blink on July 15, 2010 at 3:05 PM

I truly hope that is sincere.

blink on July 15, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Oh, it was – I can’t stand intellectually dishonest, passive-aggressive, obnoxious people in denial who can’t do anything but project their own problems onto others i.e. people like you! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 16, 2010 at 2:58 AM

blink on July 15, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Oh, one last sentence; I forgot to add “arrogant” to my description of people like you. :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 16, 2010 at 3:06 AM

Oh, it was

Bizarro No. 1 on July 16, 2010 at 2:58 AM

It absolutely was not. You said goodbye, yet you are back. It’s excruciatingly ironic that you claim that your goodbye was sincere. Logic is quite obviously difficult for you.

intellectually dishonest, passive-aggressive, obnoxious people in denial who can’t do anything but project their own problems onto others

I criticized you for attacking commenters on this thread. I know the criticism is difficult for you to handle, but try to do it with a bit of dignity. My criticism of your irrational and reckless attacks are spot on.

Try taking an honest look at yourself instead of convincing yourself that everyone else is in denial, projecting, etc. And nobody is out to “get” you.

I forgot to add “arrogant”

I’m not arrogant – just incredibly brilliant and confident. :)

blink on July 16, 2010 at 10:34 AM

It absolutely was not.

Ok! I will agree with whatever you say! (I say that because it’s more fun to throw someone like you a bone and watch you chew on it than to talk to you like you are capable of rational, adult concerversation! :) )

You said goodbye, yet you are back. It’s excruciatingly ironic that you claim that your goodbye was sincere. Logic is quite obviously difficult for you.

Ok, whatever you say! Your assessments are always spot on!

btw your sense of irony sucks just as bad as your sense of humor does! Imagine that! :)

I criticized you for attacking commenters on this thread. I know the criticism is difficult for you to handle, but try to do it with a bit of dignity. My criticism of your irrational and reckless attacks are spot on.

Ok, whatever you say! You truly do know it all! :)

Try taking an honest look at yourself instead of convincing yourself that everyone else is in denial, projecting, etc. And nobody is out to “get” you.

Ok, I’ll get right on because it came from someone as wise and authoritative as you! You understand me and my of thinking so well I can’t hardly believe it! :)