President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Is it possible to not be a "raging" or "rabid" antisemite and just be a little antisemtic?
Yes. But "raging" is a perfectly fine descriptor of Bobby Fischer's level of antisemitism.
Nah you probably wrong here .
Fischer was vastly different when he was young compare when he got old .
He got nuttier in his old age, but like I said, he was profoundly antisemitic many years before he became world champion.
“Yr open mouth awaiting my harvest,” Kennedy Jr., the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, wrote to Nuzzi in undated texts recounted by Lizza in a piece published on his Substack early Saturday.
“I mean to squeeze your cheeks to force open your mouth. I’ll hold your nose as you look up at me to encourage you to swallow. ‘Don’t spill a drop.’ I am a river You are my canyon. I mean to flow through you. I mean to subdue and tame you. My Love,” Kennedy allegedly penned to Nuzzi.
Guys, I’m not sure sex is worth having anymore
He got nuttier in his old age, but like I said, he was profoundly antisemitic many years before he became world champion.
AI
Bobby Fischer's antisemitism became a dominant and extreme part of his public persona, particularly in his later life
Early Years and Youth: Fischer's biological parents were both Jewish, and he was raised by his Jewish mother, Regina. There is no evidence he expressed antisemitism as a young child.
Fwiw it just add up on his mental problem , since both his parent were Jewish ….
Yeah many genius end up crazy .
So I could say that you both endorse burning kids alive, in certain circumstances.Then it just seems that burning kids alive is just trivially something everyone should support in certain circumstances. Therefore it’s just rhetoric to say that “Israel is burning kids alive” and “raping people to death”.Remember this is in context of what would happen to Jesus. That he would be
You can say w/e you want about what I would endorse and I and whoever the other person was can share their take.
I don't know what a lot of this means but the bolded, as written, would be a yes - which kind of goes to the point that the outcome should sure as hell outweigh actions that lead to burning kids alive. That better be either one special mother****ing place or preventing an incomprehensible evil. The current I/P war ... doesn't cut it. But that's just my opinion and you have yours.
You can say w/e you want about what I would endorse and I and whoever the other person was can share their take. I don't know what a lot of this means but the bolded, as written, would be a yes - which kind of goes to the point that the outcome should sure as hell outweigh actions that lead to burning kids alive. That better be either one special mother****ing place or prevent
Well for instance, I can’t think of a single situation that would ever justify me murdering another human being purely for my own fun/pleasure. Even if I was told that I need to do that to save the world, it just would not be psychologically possible for me, and in any case it would analytically be the case that it wouldn’t “purely” be for fun even if I figured out a way to have fun doing it.
On the other hand if you are trying to use some kind of takedown of the Israel side by saying “you guys are burning babies alive!” but then would endorse burning babies alive in other circumstances, then it seems that there’s a symmetry breaker between that and “you are murdering someone purely for fun!” which you would never (or shouldn’t) endorse.
It’s sort of a microcosm of the pacifist impulse, especially the hypocritical pacifist impulse of someone like Victor who seems to support the actions of the Soviet Union.
So I could say that you both endorse burning kids alive, in certain circumstances. Then it just seems that burning kids alive is just trivially something everyone should support in certain circumstances.
okayyyyyy
I guess you guys endorse such language being used because technically bombing people could be considered burning children alive. Seems kind of silly to use that as a knock against Israel since you both support burning children alive, right?
No, because the IDF is clearly not remotely justified is bombing refugee camps.
On the other hand if you are trying to use some kind of takedown of the Israel side by saying “you guys are burning babies alive!” but then would endorse burning babies alive in other circumstances, then it seems that there’s a symmetry breaker between that and “you are murdering someone purely for fun!” which you would never (or shouldn’t) e
Gosh, it's almost as if WWII and the ongoing extermination of Palestine are different things!
okayyyyyy
No, because the IDF is clearly not remotely justified is bombing refugee camps.
Gosh, it's almost as if WWII and the ongoing extermination of Palestine are different things!
So just to be clear, you do think there are acceptable situations to “burn children alive” so saying that Israel is doing it doesn’t necessarily mean they are doing something bad, right?
And there’s no ongoing extermination of Palestinians, that’s ridiculous.
At the foundation of reality is a story, and in this story the male leads. At the end of this story, the female is glorified in a way that is unmatched, but this part of the story can never be actualized if women continue to sabotage the story’s progression.
Where does the systemic sodomization of altar boys at the hands (penises?) of priests fit into the story?
its weird that the Soviets were able to beat the Nazis and win multiple battles against the Japanese without resorting to mass murdering 100s of thousands of civilians at a time.
The Soviets were only able to defeat the Nazis because, by the time of Stalingrad, the Nazis were forced to devote more manpower, weaponry, aircraft and materiel at any one time to home air defence against Allied bombers than to the entire war on the Eastern Front.
Soviet participation in the war against Japan was last-minute and fairly nominal.
The Soviets were only able to defeat the Nazis because, by the time of Stalingrad, the Nazis were forced to devote more manpower, weaponry, aircraft and materiel at any one time to home air defence against Allied bombers than to the entire war on the Eastern Front.
Soviet participation in the war against Japan was last-minute and fairly nominal.
Soviets smoked Japan in 1939 too.
But I still wouldn't call the 1945 invasion nominal. Japanese stood no chance and the Soviets rolled through Manchuria in like a few weeks. If anything it proves the absurdity of the atomic war crimes by the White Empire.
