Monday, October 27, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(158)
-
▼
October
(14)
- Judyth Vary Baker
- James Fetzer / JFK Show #33 (w/ Gary King)
- Nathan Folks, David Weiss
- James Fetzer / James Mariano
- Jim Fetzer / JFK Show #32 (w/ Gary King)
- Larry Hanrahan / Thomas Goodrich
- Margaret Siegrist
- Majia Nadesan / Gary King
- Pablo Novi Schanes
- James Perloff
- Kevin Barrett / Gary King
- Richie Allen / Tina Foster
- James Mariano / Nick Kollerstrom
- Gordon Duff / New JFK Show #29
-
▼
October
(14)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteapsterian wants general deductive concepts here but for Paul's death case he wants only induction and won't go learn where that part is.
DeleteHo ho.
Yeah, that's right I'm going to summarize a 300 page book in a comment box. Why don't you read the book (which debunks all the nonsense you post here) and tell us in detail where he goes wrong (and, no, calling him a Jew is not an argument--I don't even know if the authors are Jewish). You call my reference to professional historians "subjective"? Interesting. I'm sure your references to YOURSELF is objective, right?
DeleteIf you think your "counter-arguments" to that essay I posted were in any way a "debunking" of the arguments contained therein, you are more deluded than I first suspected. Get used to your time here (at this blog), I suspect you won't be here long :)
DeleteThat's a particularly inappropriate and amusing comment coming from a man that appears to lack even the most basic skills of grammar, spelling and syntax.
DeleteThis crew seems to think there will be a judges that will allow a class action lawsuit be tried in their courtroom.
ReplyDeleteIt seems a bit naive to me. The judicial system is just as corrupt as politicians and the news media.
Right.
DeleteThere are liberal Jews who do not follow Talmud. yes, the conservative Orthodox Jews adhere to it. You can't paint everything with one color. It's nonsense.
Deleteapsterian said:
ReplyDelete"...... but remember love and hate are reciprocal emotions, and Jews deserve hatred--and more.
"Second, note Christ qualifies his statement, "as I have loved u"--which indicates honesty and justice. So some deserve love, but some deserve the reciprocal, hatred--in same way as Christ showed in the story.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you sure you didn't go to synagogue instead of Sunday School? You haven't gotten your quotes straight. It is the Jews who say "an eye for an eye" but Christ said "turn the other cheek." Christ said "love your enemies."
Eye for an Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Matthew 5:38-48
Love Your Enemies
…43"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.…
+++++++++++++++++++++++
PS. BTW, someone who stole the Real Deal Comment Board for his own personal use shouldn't be quoting scripture. Get your own blog.
Stop acting like the people you rail against and have some respect for others. Maybe then, you'll respect yourself. Right now, I see a frustrated, angry person who gets his jollies by hurting others. Boring, very boring.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou should be ashamed at your lack of intellectual integrity by taking a purported saying of Jesus and using it knowingly out of context to support your own warped world view.
DeleteWolf meets with Oath Keepers / CIA Spy confirms Sandy Hook and Boston bombing “false flags” | Veterans Today
ReplyDeleteSteele [Robert David, former CIA] continues: “Boston bombing, for me, the truthteller was when the rabbis and the priests rushed to comfort the wounded and they were not allowed to get near any of the wounded. That, in intelligence, we call an indicator. And then you add to that the fact there were no, I mean no, wounded people taken to hospitals. And finally, you add to that the big to-do about the amputee. He turned out to be a hired actor for a company that specializes at putting amputees into battle field simulations. False flag. Boston was a practice attempt to lock down an entire city.”
Beg. at the 8:44 mark, Steele said: “the actual bomb was a theatrical device. You don’t buy gun powder at a fireworks store to create a bomb. It just is not done. I had my explosive ordinance people look at this. Everybody laughed at this. This was school kids stuff. THERE WAS NO BOMB. There were no injuries. This was a false flag.”
REPUBLICANS WIN MOST RACES IN TODAY'S ELECTIONS--TAKE BACK THE SENATE.
ReplyDeleteWILL MORE LIBERTARIAN IDEAS PREVAIL?
The show was interesting but I was disappointed when they mentionerd getting Bugliosi or the NRA involved in a lawsuit. This shows a lack of awareness on their part of the mainstream corruption network.In other words, they lack the big picture and see false flags as conceived by rogue agents or something. By the way Fetzer was too polite when he failed to speak up about Bugliosi.
ReplyDeleteI think Bugliosi is off his rocker.
ReplyDeletehttp://historynewsnetwork.org/article/41490
Why Vincent Bugliosi Is So Sure Oswald Alone Killed JFK (Interview)
[..............]
Lindley: Did you agree with the Warren Commission findings in 1964?
Bugliosi: I was so immersed in trying one murder case after another that I had no opinion. I made the assumption that they were decent, honorable men, and they certainly were.
Lindley: You conclude that Oswald killed President Kennedy.
Bugliosi: Here, everything pointed toward Oswald’s guilt. All the physical evidence, all the scientific evidence. Everything he said, everything he did. In Reclaiming History, at the end of book one, I set forth 53 separate pieces of evidence pointing toward Oswald’s guilt. It would not be humanly possible for this man to be innocent and still have 53 pieces of evidence pointing toward his guilt. Only in a fantasy world can you have 53 pieces of evidence pointing toward guilt and still be innocent. Quickly, five pieces:
==Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon. That’s pretty heavy by itself.
==Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination.
==Forty-five minutes later, he shoots and kills Officer J. D. Tippit, Dallas Police Department. That murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed.
==Thirty minutes later at a Texas theatre he resists arrest, pulls a gun on the arresting officer.
==During his interrogation, [Oswald] told one provable lie after another, showing a consciousness of guilt.
Kindly Bombs, Clean Hair & Kindly-Dumb Bombers:
ReplyDeleteHere's 3 things I've noticed about the Boston Marathon Bomb Hoax that don't get mentioned much if at all:
1) the "bomb(s)" seemed to have been very "prudish"; though dozens & dozens of people suffered supposed leg injuries, there are no reports of genital injuries nor fotos of exposed genitals;
2) in the over 100 videos I've watched, I have yet to see even ONE "injured" person with their head/hair actually on the ground - I guess that'd be too much to ask even of a crisis actor - to put their head directly on that filthy surface. In the few instances I've seen of people with their heads all the way down, they have either hats or something else between their hair & the ground. Of course, severely injured people would be either so dizzy or unconscious, that they'd "automatically" have their heads on the ground;
3) The first thing that tipped me off to it being a hoax was that the supposed terrorists deliberately chose to injure as few people as possible instead of as many as possible. If there were real terrorists, they would have exploded their bombs right around the time that the top Elite Male runners were crossing the finish line. This would have caused the most people to be injured & resulted in the most press coverage. Instead, there were very few press people & perhaps less than 10% of the spectators still around by the time of the "explosions".
In sum: the "bombs" were kindly (no genital injuries or even exposures to view); regardless of the severity of their "injuries", the "victims" kept their hair clean; and the "bombers" were kindly, "injuring" as few as possible AND dumb, reaping minimum rather than maximum exposure for their "dirty deeds".
btw, I'm Pablo (Novi Schanes), Director of the "911 Crash Test" Project ( www.911crashtest.org ) who was interviewed by Jim Fetzer on his Real Deal program, just about a month ago; broadcast on October 13th, 2014.
ReplyDeleteWake up Peekay and crew
ReplyDeleteVictims are real
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/photos-of-17-amputees-shown-at-boston-marathon-bombing-trial#.rnYWW4QjRp
Not Fakes
http://projects.dearworld.me/boston-marathon