Your account is 4 months old the only thing you know is of late.
That you, chief?
Hey, look, I'm not getting anything interesting out of you either. If you've been sufficiently educated or shamed into not relying on motherfucking politifact of all things to inform your opinion or set your facts in order, I'm good with it. Go forth and be less ridiculous. Don't rely on evil goblins to do your arguing for you. This means no snopes, no politifact, no bluesky, no redditors, and so on in this fashion. It's a matter of hygiene.
It has nothing to do with age, you just tried to pull some kind of rank on me, and I rebuffed it.
You need to read slower or grow brighter.
No, it's not. Right now right here what's being discussed is the value of posting politififact links as argument. You don't get to tell me or anyone what's "all that's being discussed." Holy shit, the entitlement.
edit: also, read these fucking things. Even according to politicrap, the 2018 ruling is real. What they balance against it is "sparked backlash" and "In 2019, after thousands signed a petition calling for sexual offense legislation to be revamped, Finland announced it was strengthening its laws"
but
No actual change in law or contrary rulings. There may be, but those aren't featured here.
WHICH IS WHY POLITFACT IS CRAP. They say true things are false with silly arcane linguistic torture. They also frequently say false things are true, and both ways they go only ever serve the Blue Longhouse. PF is some hardcore boomer facebook-level bluesky-fodder reddit-"well ackshually" bullshit, and you should know this.
Not knowing this is a problem. Wanna try Snopes nexr? Where you from, boy?
Die horribly and soon, shit-ass monkey creature.
I've lost track of what specific people you're even talking about. Unless...nah. I mean, unless you're claiming that the current tenants of the Country Israel are the same people mentioned in the verses you've quoted.
Is that what's going on here? Do you think these people are the same? Because if so, whew lad, good luck with all that you've got some very not fun learning in your future. And if not, then a gazillionty different things need to happen to even begin to set up the conditions needed for a start to any of those prophecies--like, "In the year 2757, North Korea leads the world in GDP" kind of so-far-in-the-future-who-the-fuck-even-knows.
Well, a couple of notes:
First, because Paul gets brought up a lot in these contexts: Paul repented. It wasn't something he might do, or is prophesied to do, or is likely to do. He did it, no conjecture necessary, he walked the walk and talked the talk. Literally nobody ever says that a person can't enter the fold, but they have to actually do it for it to count.
Second:
But it will be a significant amount of Jews repent and Israel as a nation repents.
I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, bunch of fucking idol-worshiping heretics.
Delta Force 1 literally re-creates the "Trains to the left, trains to the right" part of the Great Holocaust Mythos, then splits the hostages into Jew and not-Jew, and has Norris specifically go rescue just the Jews. It was pretty on the nose and insufferable.
Don't revisit "Delta Force." It's completely awful and will make you angry.
YMMV of course, but everyone I know who went career military, whether they made it past 10 years or not, became considerably faggier for having done so. I'm not sure where people get the idea that military, which we all know has been taken over by prog-goblins since at least the late 80's, somehow innoculates young minds against globohomo.
Definitely the opposite.
That sounds like some pretty hard cope, honestly. What would the point even be in recognizing the new covenant (which is entirely a "You've been fucking up, you need to change" reform movement) if everybody who just up and decides to ignore it (or revile it, or, say, lynch the prophet who brings it) gets just sort of grandfathered into the new deal anyways?
And saying "prophet" there is the softest scenario. You could parse it just as well as "God himself came down for an audit (which most of you failed) and you murked him in a backwater because you couldn't lawyer out of it."
No, "the fucking worst" is lazy-ass piece of shit blatherers who don't bother to read past The Fucking Headline before gibbbering out how exactly this latest news nugget just-so happens to align with and reinforce all the dumb fucking things they already thought anyways, and can't restrain themselves enough to learn the barest piece of actual information before bloviating like an asshole.
That, by-the-by, is TOP-TIER REDDIT BEHAVIOR, Shooting off, as you did, is pure reddit. Expecting people to read or go beyond the headline is anti-reddit. To be clear here: Reading is anti-reddit, speaking without reading is reddit. Reddit is always asshoe.
That's you. You're asshoe. Slow your fucking roll before opening your cavernous fucking e-mouth, you slime- sucking jagoff. I was trying to be gentle with you, maybe give you a little prod into acting like an actual human being, but clearly YOU'RE HAVING EXACTLY NONE OF THAT, you goddamn barbarian piece of shit.
Also don't try to pull rank on me, young fuck-stick. I've almost certainly been enmeshed in this mess a lot longer than you. This account is young because all mods suck dick.
Also also, mark your fuckin edits. Observe:
edit: Don't cite the deep magic to me, witch. I was there when Chris Raygun was still a good guy. Hell, I was there when David Pakman was still acting like a person.
No thanks, but I read enough of the politicrap shitfest to know it's just their usual shenanigans, They say a ruling isn't significant because of the law, while ignoring that rulings are far more important, as they are the actual intersection of law where it hits real life. PF always pulls this crap, always in the same direction. They're always shit.
People are posting Politicrap "fact-checks" here unironically? Wtf is going on with the standards here of late.
Fuckin look it up, loser. We're all at computers here, and you clearly didn't bother reading anything about this incident before spouting off.
Here: hint: The parents aren't the ones who put her in the facility--she wasn't there by choice. Now go do the bare minimum instead of sassing off at me, lazy fuck-stick.
There's more to this story than you're aware of. Seek it out and update yourself.
lol fair enough. Hope you've got your sense of self squared away so you don't get bent in the process of playing their tunes.
This must be that "talent" I hear so much about.
I hate it and I want it dead and/or gone.
"Based on comments on the internet..."
LOL! Holy shit! I mean... I mean just...
I am not kidding. Shut off your internet and go grow some vegetables. This is not a dig or a bag or a burn. 100% literally, sincerely, go do exactly this. It's a great time to start seedlings.
"Living wage to the working class..."
I'm just curious: Do you know that you're a leftist? Or are you simply unaware that these are entirely leftist shibboleths?
I find it hard to believe people are up-voting, and not down-voting, this bullshit Commie trash here.
I get what you're trying to say, but you're missing what I'm saying. I know they're doing AI of familiar actors because it will appeal to the people where he is Thing They Know. I'm saying that they can establish Thing They Know going forward with something cheaper, that they have complete control over, will never age, owe nothing to the unions, and it won't embarrass itself on social media.
But you've got a fair point. Dead actors are also free of those constraints and still familiar.
The thing I'm missing about what you're saying is what your over-arching argument or overall point is.
It appears to be something along the lines of "this would be easier/cheaper to do with something that never was a living actor."
To which my recurring rejoinder is "Okay," for a reason. Because it's money lying on the table. They can do it your way, but it's also lucrative to do it with dead actors. Maybe there are ways in which your schema brings benefits. But doing it the other way does too--which is why they're doing it.
I'll admit to being halfway lost here, as I really don't understand your argumentative thrust. Your initial post said "Why," and I answered plausibly "because x etc."
That there are other ways of doing things in the world is really neither here nor there. Sure, they could do anything else. But instead they're doing this, for reasons I hazarded. They're decided to puppeteer the corpse of Val Kilmer. They could've...rented a billboard, and put original IP or a completely new, completely invented character on it. But they didn't. It's not necessary to explain why not. This was about why.
Okay? I don't know what this has to do with my post. You describe how you operate. I described how 99.99999% of everyone else does. They see Thing They Know, they pay money to see more of Thing They Know. It's the same reason why the laundry up the street from me when I was a kid had Winnie the Pooh stuff painted all over the walls. It's also why Disney sues the shit out of people for doing things like that.
There hasn't been anything special--acting talent or whatnot--about actors and actresses for decades and decades. That's not what they're there for. And this new voodoo isn't using corpses out of sheer utility. They're using these packages, limitations and all, because of the cache the actor-as-icon brings to the table. Thing They Know.
You might as well ask why use anyone other than established celebrities. Because a lot of people consume media at least partially because they like looking at particular people they've come to enjoy. This ghastly manikin-making is cashing in on that impulse.
LOL as if "starting the thread" gave you some kind of authority as to what people are allowed to talk about. Like I said, holy shit levels of delusional entitlement.
And you've still not demonstrated that even a little bit, because that position relies entirely on a completely terrible source, that doesn't even agree with its own thrust.
Which is what all this is about.
You should have reasons for thinking things, and for saying them. If you want to "confirm (or disconfirm) its veracity," you're still going to have to go ahead and do that, because you sure as fuck haven't taken even baby-steps toward that as it is.
Is the original thesis sensationalized? Probably. Is it untrue? Well, so far, from what's been presented, no. De facto, due to rulings (which is real, as even PF admits) the post's thesis appears to be correct. Right now it's the ruling on one hand, versus some kind of "feeling" and a handful of signatures that Finland probably won't generally go in the direction of said ruling.
Which we don't know, because we don't have that information. But we don't have anything tangible that says otherwise, either. All we have is politifact being awful and untrustworthy, as usual.