|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 6, 2005 13:02:25 GMT -5
Pudd'nhead Wilson imho pokes fun at the one drop rule, btw.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Dec 6, 2005 13:10:08 GMT -5
Yep, it all fits neatly together; Mark Twain wrote about the Jews, too.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 6, 2005 20:24:42 GMT -5
Nizkor? you gotta be kidding me.
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 6, 2005 21:10:12 GMT -5
Nizkor? you gotta be kidding me.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 6, 2005 22:06:55 GMT -5
Nice try. Don't try to pretend I said something [claiming there were no inquiries into the matter] when I didn't. Obviously there were, given that I linked to news articles. I said given the scope in relation to the population warrant's inquiry, by anyone, as say, me, not anyone or anything in particular. Yes I'm accusing, however I believe the circumstances regarding the issues are more than merited especially considering certain activities that Zionists and Jews partake in, which are mentioned. "Both the government and the traffickers are treating these women as if they do not have human rights. The authorities have a responsibility to take action to protect these trafficked women from enslavement, imprisonment and violence." "Abuse of imported prostitutes ignored- Amnesty:Police should target pimps and not their victims, report says." ...from the sites I posted. Israel had and has heretofore no laws against slavery or prostitution. Amnesty international has said Israel doesn't utilize preventative crime fighting, like arresting pimps! rather they deport any Russians girls without citizenship. I wish this wasn't the case, however, it is. When you can prove calumniation , it's not slander. ? By calling Zionists and Zionist advocacy groups, Zionists? Israeli = Zionist = they, as in 'those Zionists'. Also, Israel as in the Jewish state, and with regard to the policy of the democratically elected Israeli government. 250,000,000 - Population of "Russian" women involved, which includes Ukrainians, Balts and other eastern Europeans that Israelis refer to as "Russians" in general. Amnesty stated 10,000 had been enslaved IN Israel within the last ten years. This I remind you doesn't include girls that are king pinned through Israel. 250,000,000 - 416,000 enslaved Israeli Women 6,000,000 - 10,000 enslaved Slavic women Jews certainly like to cry about when stuff is done to them. Difference is, I post a couple of polemic threads, they spend millions on international advocacy/sympathy organizations. -Denier -Jew Hater -Anti-Semite -Evil -Hate speech -unthinking and inherent hate -Jewish canard Which are supposed to work by sheer impact of the word alone, unless the person being duped is wise enough to ask them to expand. So if you want to accuse me of hating all Jews and simultaneously not caring about Palestinian Arabs or Slavic girl slaves, give me proof, not just the sensational accusation. For example, here is a couple of questions from an interview with the author John Sack, who is Jewish by the way: Q: You say that you believe in the gas chambers. Have you gotten far enough into it that you could produce any evidence that you could present here tonight? JS: Do I have any evidence here tonight about the existence of gas chambers? No. I accept that people of good faith, honest people, can really look at the evidence and feel that there's not enough evidence that there were gas chambers. I hope that you accept that other people can look at the evidence and conclude that there is enough evidence, and that's my conclusion. I don't think that anybody who disagrees is a "neo-Nazi" or an "anti-Semite" or a hate-filled person. I think that you just happen to have a different opinion from me. Q: Can you talk about your own experience being discriminated against and called an "anti-Semite," and yet you're a Jew. These reviews and articles were obviously libeling you. JS: On the Charlie Rose show I was called an "anti-Semite" and a "neo-Nazi" by Deborah Lipstadt (calumniator of David Irving) I called her up after that and reminded her that I'd read her book, and I sent her a nice note about it and told her what I was trying to do in my book, and I said "How could you have said that about me?" She said "You are worse than a 'Holocaust denier,'" and I said "Deborah, I'm worse than a 'Holocaust denier'?" and she said "You are worse than a 'Holocaust denier.'" I said "Could you explain why?," and she said "No. I have a faculty meeting," and that's the last I talked to her. It doesn't scare me. It doesn't hurt me. It amuses me. You pointed out something that you know nothing about, so as to label me as being motivated not by sympathy for victims of Zionists, but rather by an unthinking hatred of Jews, that is appealing to emotion. Someone tried the same thing in another thread. I guess it becomes a second nature reaction when dealing with someone you assume is a Jew hater. It too is a telling accusation, since certainly no Jew should ever be criticized. Likewise, if someone should find relevant information in jewish religious law, they should not bring it up. Not because it's irrelevant, but because it's regarding Jews.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 6, 2005 22:11:57 GMT -5
Nizkor? you gotta be kidding me. It's an agitprop website owned by a guy name Kenneth McVay who posts at alt.revisionism on usenet. I found it strange, and at the same time, not strange, his website would have an article by Mark twain about jews.
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 9, 2005 7:42:10 GMT -5
------ On sex slave numbers and proportions
You're proposing the following analogy/proportion Russian population : enslaved Israeli women :: Israeli pop. : enslaved Slavic women
This seems kind of silly. Suppose there is a country X with a population of a hundred people and 50 Slavic slave women. Then by your analogy, there should be 125,000,000 X women slaves in Russia. But alas X has only 100 people!!! Reductio ad absurdum. Do you see why your analogy is ludicrous?
A better analogy would have been Russian pop: enslaved Russian women :: Israeli pop. : enslaved Israeli women 250,000,000 - 10,000 enslaved Slavic Women 6,000,000 - 240 enslaved Israeli women
Now I doubt there are even 240 Israeli women enslaved in Eastern Europe. Let's suppose there isn't and you need this assumption. This STILL doesn't show that ratio of Jews involved is disproportionate. All it shows is that more Slavic women who are fooled into sex slavery end up in Israel, than enslaved Israeli women end up in Eastern Europe, relatively and absolutely.
------------
Prove this "Yet at the same time having liars and scoundrels who specialize in culmination like international Zionist organizations (b'nai brith, ADL, Jewish congress, AIPC lobby, etc.) and talking heads like wiesenthal or Elie Wiesel, canvasing the western world with only revenge and pillage on their minds."
--------------
[1] Sentence has no intinsic meaning. Simply appealing to emotion. Irrelevant to the point at hand. [2] Why are you comparing yourself and all Jews? What is the "difference" supposed to illustrate? How is this relevant? [3] What is this supposed to be? How is this relevant to the point at hand? Please don't post what you may have been called by someone else (as it has nothing to do with me) or what you wish I called so you could play your victim card.
-------------
On "absolutely no initiative"
"The human rights group acknowledges that Israel has taken steps to improve the situation, including the passage of legislation in March that states that all women are entitled to protection from violence and trafficking. The justice ministry is also drafting a provision to criminalize the buying and selling of people, the report said. " (http://www.ukar.org/bell01.html -- Your own article) And this was back in 2000. There goes your "absolutely no initiative." Where were you looking? ------------- Jews, Israel, Sex Slavery, and You You paint the sex slave trade as some crime perpetrated by Jews on Gentiles. What makes you think the traffickers are Jewish? Since the women originate in Eastern Europe the men who lure and traffic them are most likely to be,
guess who, Eastern European. Here's a quote: "The routes are controlled by Russian crime gangs based in Moscow. Even when they do not specifically move the women overseas, they provide security,
logistical support, liaison with brothel owners in many countries and, usually, false documents." This problem has to be dealt with at the root. But you don't seem to be concerned with this. Israel is just ONE of many destinations for these women. Yet you're bashing Israel and Jews as if it's Israel's fault, as if Jews have orchestrated this plot to bring Slavic women slavery. These women are "shipped" to various countries like Turkey, Italy, Japan, Thailand, according your article. It also says "The International Organization for Migration has said that as many as 500,000 women are annually trafficked into Western Europe alone."(http://www.ukar.org/specter01.html) Moreover a lot of the demand for these women in Israel is not even genated by Israelis: "and with 250,000 foreign male workers — most of whom are single or here without their wives — the demand is great." (http://www.ukar.org/specter01.html). So how big a role do Jews really play in all of this? Certainly like nothing what you purported it to be.
Is there not a single Jew somehow involved in this international trade. Highly unlikely. Jews come from various backgrounds and there are some Jews who would no doubt be involved in this. But it's not right to prescribe the actions of a few criminals to a whole country and its peoples. And not only that but to prescribe the whole international sex slave trade to Jews, claiming a bogus relation to population (debunked above). And you even go as far as to dub it Sado-Judeo-Sex-Slavery. What is any rational person supposed to think of you? That you're an unbiased person, motivated by concern for the helpless?
You can play your victim card all you want and this has nothing to do with appealing to emotion (which is actually something you excel at). Taking the aforementioned into consideration, what am I (or any other reasonable person) supposed to think of you. That you are an unbiased person, motivated purely by compassion for the downtrodden? I don't see it. You deliberately target Jews. Your distort information and cherrypick to deliberately portray Jews in bad light. Then you have the nerve to play the victim. Poor Duke can't say anything without being assumed a jewhater or anti-semite.
This problem has to be dealt with and it has to be dealt with at the root. Some of these articles are a few years old, so hopefully it's on decline by now as more women become aware of these schemes. You singling out Israel and Jews is not addressing the problem, and shows that you don't care a single bit about these women. You just need this as a fodder for your calumny.
-------------
.Addendum
Appeals to emotion, emotive slander: examples -"girls tricked into sado-judeo-sex-slavery." -"if someone should find relevant information in jewish religious law, they should not bring it up. Not because it's irrelevant, but because it's regarding Jews." (Here's a hint:: Yes because it's irrelevant) -"Jews certainly like to cry about when stuff is done to them." -"What makes you think Germany or Spain doesn't care about injustice done to the Russian people" -"It's an agitprop website owned by a guy name Kenneth McVay who posts at alt.revisionism on usenet." -"I guess Israel thinks it's fine and dandy to harbor people that pillage billions from the Russian people, mass murderers, slave traders whom [sic] deal in Slavonic women, and other fine upstanding members of any society." -"who's brave enough to say that Zionists, organized Jewry, and all else connected don't deserve every bit of the "new" anti-semitism coming from Russia, or the Ukraine or Poland. Long time and enduring victims of libel, bold faced hypocrisy of the most twisted variety, widespread calumniation, all for profit or out of spite." -"Though according to this process, the 90 year old Ukrainian or German or Lett, deserves every bit of the onslaught that comes against his self by corrupt governments, Zionists, fifth column hate groups like the ADL, countless mediums of media, and of course the countless politicians who have either infiltrated with their ulterior agendas in tow, or those skewed by lobbyists with bottomless pockets. " -"Supremist attitudes, exploitation, and the vile hypocrisy of Zionist policy is what the common theme is."
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 9, 2005 13:45:27 GMT -5
Nizkor? you gotta be kidding me. First of all, the link is not to Nizkor. It's to Fordham University's Modern History Source Book. Nizkor doesn't even have this article. So why the hell do you bring this up with your inane multiple question marks? Oh oh I see, near the bottom, it gives a link to Nizkor Project as a source. But it's not a source for the article, rather the footnotes attached to the article. Did you bother to figure that out? Oh but wait you say you find it funny (and not funny at the same time) that Nizkor would contain Mark Twain's article about Jews. But it doesn't! Do you still find it funny? And you have a lot of nerve accusing it of being agitrop.Why? Just because they dispel the myths perpetuated by holocaust deniers?
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 9, 2005 15:34:16 GMT -5
Nizkor? you gotta be kidding me. First of all, the link is not to Nizkor. It's to Fordham University's Modern History Source Book. Nizkor doesn't even have this article. So why the hell do you bring this up with your inane multiple question marks? Oh oh I see, near the bottom, it gives a link to Nizkor Project as a source. But it's not a source for the article, rather the footnotes attached to the article. Did you bother to figure that out? Oh but wait you say you find it funny (and not funny at the same time) that Nizkor would contain Mark Twain's article about Jews. But it doesn't! Do you still find it funny? And you have a lot of nerve accusing it of being agitrop.Why? Just because they dispel the myths perpetuated by holocaust deniers? You have a lot of nerve calling historians "holocaust deniers".
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 9, 2005 16:00:53 GMT -5
First of all, the link is not to Nizkor. It's to Fordham University's Modern History Source Book. Nizkor doesn't even have this article. So why the hell do you bring this up with your inane multiple question marks? Oh oh I see, near the bottom, it gives a link to Nizkor Project as a source. But it's not a source for the article, rather the footnotes attached to the article. Did you bother to figure that out? Oh but wait you say you find it funny (and not funny at the same time) that Nizkor would contain Mark Twain's article about Jews. But it doesn't! Do you still find it funny? And you have a lot of nerve accusing it of being agitrop.Why? Just because they dispel the myths perpetuated by holocaust deniers? You have a lot of nerve calling historians "holocaust deniers". I pointed out that you're are willfully ignorant and will jump at any attempt to slander and this is the best you can come up with in your defense? Where did I call historians "holocaust deniers", pray tell?
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 10, 2005 2:52:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 10, 2005 11:59:33 GMT -5
Exactly. It was supposed to be a response to my message. But it was IRRELEVANT to my message. That's why I said it was irrelevant. It didn't not address the point. What, do you think you can just respond with anything?
Yes I do remember it. In fact I quoted it. And then debunked it.
Go back and read my On sex slave numbers and proportions. Read it carefully so that you undersand this time, as it appears you're a not too bright.
Again you don't seem to understand the purpose of a response. When you respond, it must be relevant to what you are respondint to. You can't just post something that doesn't directly address the message. Who do you think you're fooling.
Moreover, All you can say is Jews use this rhetoric and that rhetoric. How does that apply to me? You're arguing with me. Don't tell me what other people do. That's not my problem.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 10, 2005 23:55:44 GMT -5
You - 2]Why are you comparing yourself and all Jews? What is the "difference" supposed to illustrate? How is this relevant? Me - [2]Difference is, I post a couple of polemic threads, they spend millions on international advocacy/sympathy You - Where did I use victim rhetoric? The only person using the victim rhetoric is you. Just look at all your posts. Boo hoo. Jews did this. Jews did that. Jews are such evil exploitators. Blah. Blah. Blah. It was responding to your post! and it was completely relevant. The above was the series. I accused Zionists and the American "professional holocaust survivors" that renegade against free speech and canvas for pity money, as playing the part of "victim" and using "victim rhetoric" as a means to their goal. ie. rather than explain how it is a person, like David Irving for example, is wrong and should be censored, they opt for sensationalist rhetoric and act as if that's all they need. Just like you obviously think it's all you need. You say I don't care about Palestinians yet you don't tell me why. So instead of answering, you use the accusation against me as a personal attack rather than attack what I said. Don't bother responding if your memory can only go back a thread or two. It's stupid and a waste of time. You didn't "debunk" jack. You asked for the numbers, I gave them, than you went of on a tangent about how it was fallacious! Again, rather than respond to why the numbers are disproportionate. Since that was what I was emphasizing in the first place: the disproportionate nature. You asked for "the numbers". If you don't want answers, don't ask questions. You don't have a leg to stand on! Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. Just because you can't remember what it was you previously posted, doesn't mean my answers weren't relevant. It means you need to either get a better memory or take notes. Because your argument parallel theirs as does you incessant quibbling about meaningless tripe, and attacks against me personally. Rather than against what I wrote.
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 11, 2005 2:41:51 GMT -5
First of all let me point out that your admission here is telling. You cannot be taken seriously if you use what someone else says as your arguing points. I speak for myself and no one else. And no one speaks for me. Don't attribute to me what others have said, and don't use it in an argument against me. I cannot answer for what others have said. Your penchant for bringing up external information as if I it has anything to do with me and using it as your arguing points only shows your weakness. Please don't do it, as I don't do that to you. I know perfectly well what was said. I wish same could be said for you. Unlike you I put in a lot of thought in what I write. Lets review ( I am commenting in blue): You:When the Jews here were accusing the contemptible "Natasha's" as being "sluts" who became slaves completely under their own free will, it was obvious to me how you came to that sentiment, and what you really meant. Me:Yigal may be a Jew, but he's definitely not Jews. Purposely distorting reality is your hobby. In other words you're are attributing what Yigal (singular) said to Jews(plural). That is purposefully distorting reality.You: Of course using this Jewish victim rhetoric: accusing me of distorting reality, without actually using proof, rather using emotive slander (anti-Semite, holocaust denier, hate filled, etc.) as proof "in and of itself", is to be expected. As it seems it's all you have in your arsenal. I never used any victim rhetoric, didn't call any of those names. So what gives? Perhaps this is your habit of automatically stereotyping your opponents at play here. Essentially you ignored what I've said and just played the victim card.Me: Where did I use victim rhetoric? The only person using the victim rhetoric is you. Just look at all your posts. Boo hoo. Jews did this. Jews did that. Jews are such evil exploitators. Blah. Blah. Blah. You:[1] Jews certainly like to cry about when stuff is done to them. [2]Difference is, I post a couple of polemic threads, they spend millions on international advocacy/sympathy organizations.
[3] -Denier -Jew Hater -Anti-Semite -Evil -Hate speech -unthinking and inherent hate -Jewish canard Didn't answer where I used victim rhetoric. Nor disproved that you don't use victim rhetoric. Just mentioned what "Jews" supposedly like to cry about. What does that got to do with me? I don't know.
Mentioned that "Jews" spend millions on intenational sympathy/advocacy and that your polemic posts pale in comparison. Again what does this have to do with me. How is this relevant at all.
Then listed a bunch of words and phrases. One more time what does that have to do with me. How does that show I use victim rhetoric or that you don't?
Essentially the whole post just confirmed my point that you do use victim rhetoric, as that is what the whole thing was.
Me: [1] Sentence has no intinsic meaning. Simply appealing to emotion. Irrelevant to the point at hand. [2] Why are you comparing yourself and all Jews? What is the "difference" supposed to illustrate? How is this relevant? [3] What is this supposed to be? How is this relevant to the point at hand? Please don't post what you may have been called by someone else (as it has nothing to do with me) or what you wish I called so you could play your victim card. You:[1]It's not irrelevant, it was a response to an accusation. Again how is it a relevant response to an accusation? You know, the messages that you posted before this one. And yes, The ADL, B'nai brith, Simon weisenthal center, etc, exist, and exist for the sole purpose of advancing their Jewish or Zionist agenda, usually either in search of money, or in weisenthal and Elie weisels case, money and blood. [2] Again, It was in response to YOUR message. That's given. But the response didn't address the message. You had to show where I use victim rhetoric and prove that you don't. You didn't do this. That's how it usually goes: someone posts something the other responds. You and "anodyne" have a habit of responding to my posts as if there hadn't been a string of posts before it. [3] Rhetoric used by Zionists, and or pro-censorship Jews. Which is adopted rhetoric by people who argue their agendas. I don't argue anyone's agenda. Don't assume anything. Don't stereotype. Their arguments are ridiculous and one commonality is the use of inherent "hate" as motive. "anodyne" used it in her initial response to me in the "stalin" thread. Sheit's he even let it slip out preemptively before I had even mentioned anything that could be used to make such a judgment, which was of me be "disgusting" . You used it here:
Still haven't shown where I use victim rhetoric or that you don't. In fact, just confirmed the latter. --------- As for the numbers and proportions, I'll start a new thread on that as this is one is getting messy. I'll give my understanding of your argument and ask you if you agree. Then proceed from there. Link to that thread: dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=newslinks&thread=1134287777
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 11, 2005 16:24:04 GMT -5
First of all let me point out that your admission here is telling. You cannot be taken seriously if you use what someone else says as your arguing points. I speak for myself and no one else. And no one speaks for me. Don't attribute to me what others have said, and don't use it in an argument against me. I cannot answer for what others have said. Your penchant for bringing up external information as if I it has anything to do with me and using it as your arguing points only shows your weakness. Please don't do it, as I don't do that to you. I know perfectly well what was said. I wish same could be said for you. Unlike you I put in a lot of thought in what I write. Lets review ( I am commenting in blue): You:When the Jews here were accusing the contemptible "Natasha's" as being "sluts" who became slaves completely under their own free will, it was obvious to me how you came to that sentiment, and what you really meant. Me:Yigal may be a Jew, but he's definitely not Jews. Purposely distorting reality is your hobby. In other words you're are attributing what Yigal (singular) said to Jews(plural). That is purposefully distorting reality.You: Of course using this Jewish victim rhetoric: accusing me of distorting reality, without actually using proof, rather using emotive slander (anti-Semite, holocaust denier, hate filled, etc.) as proof "in and of itself", is to be expected. As it seems it's all you have in your arsenal. I never used any victim rhetoric, didn't call any of those names. So what gives? Perhaps this is your habit of automatically stereotyping your opponents at play here. Essentially you ignored what I've said and just played the victim card.Me: Where did I use victim rhetoric? The only person using the victim rhetoric is you. Just look at all your posts. Boo hoo. Jews did this. Jews did that. Jews are such evil exploitators. Blah. Blah. Blah. You:[1] Jews certainly like to cry about when stuff is done to them. [2]Difference is, I post a couple of polemic threads, they spend millions on international advocacy/sympathy organizations.
[3] -Denier -Jew Hater -Anti-Semite -Evil -Hate speech -unthinking and inherent hate -Jewish canard Didn't answer where I used victim rhetoric. Nor disproved that you don't use victim rhetoric. Just mentioned what "Jews" supposedly like to cry about. What does that got to do with me? I don't know.
Mentioned that "Jews" spend millions on intenational sympathy/advocacy and that your polemic posts pale in comparison. Again what does this have to do with me. How is this relevant at all.
Then listed a bunch of words and phrases. One more time what does that have to do with me. How does that show I use victim rhetoric or that you don't?
Essentially the whole post just confirmed my point that you do use victim rhetoric, as that is what the whole thing was.
Me: [1] Sentence has no intinsic meaning. Simply appealing to emotion. Irrelevant to the point at hand. [2] Why are you comparing yourself and all Jews? What is the "difference" supposed to illustrate? How is this relevant? [3] What is this supposed to be? How is this relevant to the point at hand? Please don't post what you may have been called by someone else (as it has nothing to do with me) or what you wish I called so you could play your victim card. You:[1]It's not irrelevant, it was a response to an accusation. Again how is it a relevant response to an accusation? You know, the messages that you posted before this one. And yes, The ADL, B'nai brith, Simon weisenthal center, etc, exist, and exist for the sole purpose of advancing their Jewish or Zionist agenda, usually either in search of money, or in weisenthal and Elie weisels case, money and blood. [2] Again, It was in response to YOUR message. That's given. But the response didn't address the message. You had to show where I use victim rhetoric and prove that you don't. You didn't do this. That's how it usually goes: someone posts something the other responds. You and "anodyne" have a habit of responding to my posts as if there hadn't been a string of posts before it. [3] Rhetoric used by Zionists, and or pro-censorship Jews. Which is adopted rhetoric by people who argue their agendas. I don't argue anyone's agenda. Don't assume anything. Don't stereotype. Their arguments are ridiculous and one commonality is the use of inherent "hate" as motive. "anodyne" used it in her initial response to me in the "stalin" thread. Sheit's he even let it slip out preemptively before I had even mentioned anything that could be used to make such a judgment, which was of me be "disgusting" . You used it here:
Still haven't shown where I use victim rhetoric or that you don't. In fact, just confirmed the latter. --------- As for the numbers and proportions, I'll start a new thread on that as this is one is getting messy. I'll give my understanding of your argument and ask you if you agree. Then proceed from there. Link to that thread: dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=newslinks&thread=1134287777You cant be impartial AND have an opinion. B'nai brith: Who Are We?
"With on-the-ground members and supporters in more than 50 countries, we are, in a real sense, the body and soul of the Jewish world" Still haven't shown where I use victim rhetoric or that Your Rhetoric and ad hominen: "Duke fantasizes about Israel attacking Iran, so that Russia can evaporate Israel. Wishful thinking, eh?" "Says Duke the truth-teller." "myths perpetuated by holocaust deniers" "Then you have the nerve to play the victim. Poor Duke can't say anything without being assumed a jewhater or anti-semite" "You just need this as a fodder for your calumny" "Correct me if I'm wrong but in the very articles you've listed it's indicated that Amnesty International did inquire into the matter. So what's the point of what you have just said? Why are you just throwing empty, meaningless words around?" "For a non-jew, Duke is way too preoccupied with Jews. In fact, "preoccupied" doesn't quite do justice here. Pathologically obsessed is more like it. Can't be healthy." If you want to attack what I said, go for it, that's the intention If you only wan't to attack me for having the opinion, don't waste my time. I don't distort. My threads came from me seeing posts on this forum by Zionists attacking people, one being David Duke in a previous thread. Whom was being labeled as hate filled and a white supremacist, when in reality he is anything but. Duke has a book detailing jewish supremism www.amazon.com/gp/product/1892796058/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-0426222-1866516?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155Yet jews don't explain why duke is a spremecist, they just label him one with no proof. Typical though. Duke: Call jews supremists and explain why they are. Duke attackers: Calls him a supremacist, give no information why, and censors all efforts of defense. I: Say zionists play the part victoms and whom use rhetoric rather than proof. You: Say that I am the one playing victim, rather than tell me why I'm wrong. Zionists and Jewish calumniators that attack him are the hate filled supremacists, so I defended him, because nobody else was. Why weren't you defending Duke?
|
|