You called me a fed, psycho. That would imply that I'm working for the federal government. Do I have to explain your own verbal diarrhea to you? I thought you blocked me?
I have. Shahak is an interesting guy and as a public intellectual waging taboo warfare against a fundamentalist religious body, I highly respect his work. Unfortunately, he undermined some of his best writing with truly bizarre falsehoods and fabrications. I'm not sure what his motive was with regards to that stuff.
So now I'm not only gay, but I'm also a hick working for the federal government? Do you know how stupid you sound? Delete your account before you drag the average IQ level of this forum even lower.
If you fail to see my point, then I'm going to chalk that up to a cognitive failure on your part. Your intellectual weakness is revealed in many facets of the way that you speak and your charming use of the word "faggot" is only one of them.
I'm not a homosexual, but thanks for revealing the full extent of your stupidity.
Not a Jezebel reader but one headline is talking about children, the other is talking about an adult politician. I see the point you’re trying to make, but I’d barely call this hypocrisy let alone “mental illness.”
Don’t know what a “handsake account” is, but I assume it’s some terminology you’re leveraging to undermine my legitimacy or something.
My point was that I see a perpetual impulse to “other” which I think is sign of an intellectual weakness. You’re implying that the offending priests are not actually Catholic but “faggots” (as if one can’t be both.) I’m going to assume that you wouldn’t be this generous with the malleability of your definitions if we were talking about Muslims or Jews.
Oh, of course. I'm not saying any of this information holds legal weight, that was obviously never a possibility from the start. I just think this is some of the most concrete and fascinating data one could cite vs. something sillier and more abstract like DEWs or whatever.
I mean, if you take a walk through this forum you'll see that these terms are essentially interchangeable.
Are you one of those people who thinks that being a heterosexual white Christian is the only "correct" thing to be?
Your argument is all over the place. I'm not going to get into some conversation with you about Jewish people "running the world" or whatever because it's actually just too boring, I'm just saying that your interpretation of the Talmud and the claims you're making about it are based on complete ignorance and a misinterpretation of the facts.
Huh? I clearly explained why it was false.
If you think that taking a piss next to another guy is inherently gay, then the issue might be with you and not the "architects," my friend.
Have you ever met a Jewish person? I can see from your multitude of posts on this topic that you're very enthusiastic about it, but so much of this information is just blatantly wrong.
"Basically every position of power is held by Jews, those Jews more or else follow their Rabbis who follow the Talmud, as discussed before, the Talmud is a massive book which is the "moral basis" of Judaism. (Jews do not really follow the Torah, they follow the Talmud). It's important to know what it says, because from it, you will learn the plans of the parasites (so called elites). In other posts I can explore its occult connections."
How do you expect people to take your argument seriously when you make blatantly false statements like this? You really don't know what you're talking about.
It's satire, he's making a joke at Kelly Cassidy's expense.
So much of this is blatantly false and serves to push the same old tired accusations against Jewish people through, in my opinion, willful and intentional misinterpretation of the Talmud.
The fix is in from the get-go, as you claim that the book is brimming with evil yet this can't be verified because the super secret editions that contain these offensive passages have been hidden away from prying eyes. Well, that's certainly convenient for you.
You cite the prohibitively expensive bidding prices for these early Talmud editions as some sort of proof that truth-seekers are "onto something." If that's the case, what dark secrets of the Illuminati does this first edition Oscar Wilde hold? It's six times the price of the second Talmud you linked, so maybe it's six times as evil? Guess we'll never know.
I'm no expert (and neither are you), but it's clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Talmud is. It's a bit like this messageboard: a matter arises and many people voice their opinions. Every opinion is considered, but some have more authority than others. If you read something like "Talmud Unmasked," you'll see how the conversational structure of the text is used to shape a false claim.
I have no time or interest in going through it to debunk it (and from what I know about this forum, I suspect it would fall on deaf ears), but to pluck something random as an example, I clicked on the section "Christians To Be Harmed Directly." Here, it says:
Even a Christian who is found studying the Law of Israel merits death. In Sanhedrin (59a) it says: "Rabbi Jochanan says: A Goi who pries into the Law is guilty to death."
The actual passage does indeed contain this phrase, but it's incomplete. What follows is a rabbi of higher authority admonishing the previous rabbi for suggesting such a thing and ruling instead that a non-Jew who studies the Torah should be respected and treated as a high priest.
So yeah, it's actually the exact opposite of what "Talmud Unmasked" is suggesting here and I would imagine that it's largely filled with misrepresentations and falsehoods just like this one.
Apologies for the long post, but this is an easy one to call bullshit on.
Is that supposed to be a short amount of time or something?
Okay? You’re still practicing the opposite of what you’re preaching.
Huh? My mind is open, but I need more evidence than “a guy on the internet said something with absolutely no proof.” You don’t seem credible to me, sorry.
Huh? My mind is open, but I need more evidence than “a guy on the internet said something with absolutely no proof.” You don’t seem credible to me, sorry.
That was a very long-winded way of telling me that you have absolutely no proof for what you're claiming. And your last bit about the nudity and masturbation is just patently false. Seek help, dude.
You discuss being pigeonholed into "fake factions" and lament the "othering" of society in the same breath as claiming "they" will murder your entire family.
Found the bootlicker.
If you’ve never seen it, I highly recommend reading loopDloop’s posts on the 9/11 truth “Let’s Roll” forums for an insanely detailed breakdown of the 9/11 hoax.
You’re pearl-clutching over a rather mediocre attempt at false equivalency. The fact that this thread has 75 upvotes kind of shows how easily triggered some of you are. Painfully dumb.