1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

I mean, the "damage" never even existed in the first place. The only people who took the claim seriously were never on Trump's side to begin with.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

Projection. Thanks for comfirming.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

"That was never my premise. My premise is woke SJW shit is a disease that corrupts every organization it touches, especially militaries."

That is you directly contradicting yourself. Until such polices become SOP, the only one "tilting at windmills" is you. All you've got is a relatively tiny number of individuals.

-1
Yawnz13 -1 points ago +1 / -2

I mean, there's no "feel right" here. There's the link to the Army's policies. I'm sure you can find the same for the other branches as well. It's not hard, just back up the shit you talk.

-1
Yawnz13 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Found the retard who thinks Twitter posts equate to actual policy.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh so you're alluding to Waco, are you?

Yes yes, the FBI (nice goal post moving there) used "a tank" (I guess that is now like the term "assault weapon" it means whatever the person using it wants to mean for propaganda purposes).

Nevermind they were trying to get into a fortified building full of armed apocalypse worshippers and child abusers.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +2 / -1

Oh, but you're the arbiter of military policies, are you not?

Go on, show me the policy letter.

How many tranny surgeries have they paid for to date? Show me the policy.

It was the military's idea for maternity flight suits? Pardon me, but I thought that was Biden's idea. Again, show me the policy.

Oh yes, the "official government account" that a literal handful of people in the government every interact with. No no no, that totally is representative of the entirety of the body in question.

https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/AR.aspx

0
Yawnz13 0 points ago +1 / -1

Don't worry, some random douchebag on the internet continues to hyperbolize current events, much like those said person claims to be against. Still waiting on your "prophecies" to come to pass.

-4
Yawnz13 -4 points ago +2 / -6

Thanks for proving my point, retard. The only self-righteouness present here is you, flinging generalizations around like it was your own shit while curiously doing nothing about the ills you claim exist.

0
Yawnz13 0 points ago +2 / -2

It means enough. You shill for events that won't happen because you profit off of fear.

Waht are they going to burn anything with? Why haven't they done so now? If they intended to do so, they could have alreayd done it, so where is it?

-2
Yawnz13 -2 points ago +5 / -7

Yeah man, because "your military" is some idelogically homogenous group, nevermind the fact that there's always been distinct lines between desk-occupying officers and senior NCOs relative to the rest of the military.

-1
Yawnz13 -1 points ago +3 / -4

That feeling when retards genuinely think some National Guard people going off the reservation equates to a "military coup d'etat". Really? A bunch of poorly trained fat bodies who just wear the uniform are going to take over?

This is the same stupid angle that the left uses to talk about gun control. "Oh your AR-15 can't fight tanks and jets HURR DURR!" Yeah no shit, but tanks and jets aren't going to be particularly useful in a domestic gun control scenario anyway. Same with here. They have two mags of ammo and half of them aren't even wearing any plates in their vests because they're too out of shape to stand around in them for a few hours.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

Are you thick? They're fully willing to throw their own under the bus.

84
Yawnz13 84 points ago +103 / -19

But as shown, there's no ability to prosecute since there's "no standing" to bring charges.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

Claiming that it wasn't the Jews that killed him is a little disingenuous considering you admit that the Sanhedrin already wanted him dead by the time he was sent before Herod Antipas and Pilate. Using the phrase "the Jews" does not necessarily equate to lumping in the entirty of the Jewish populaition.

Would the Romans have killed him without the same sentiment from Jewish authorities? Probably, but only if he demonstrated that he was a threat to their rule in the region. Sure Romans killed other Messiah claimants as well, but your own source demonstrates the key difference. The other claimants were killed only after they led armed revolts against Roman rule. As far as we can see, Jesus Christ/ of Nazareth never did so. Based on accounts from the New Testament, he never intended to, and that was part of the reason why his claim to being the Messiah is not traditionally believed.

Sure, we can sit around and circle jerk about whether Pilate's reluctance to kill Jesus was just theatrics, but what would the point of said theatrics be? Considering Jesus had broken no laws against the Roman government, there was no legitimate reason under Roman law to have him killed.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

It isn't all over any media.

Provide evidence.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's the point though. Who Charlie Kirk is or whether the question seems like low-hanging fruit is wholly irrelevant. The validity of the question is separate from the person asking it.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›