Liberal Gloating

  • Thread starter Thread starter MistaGuitah
  • Start date Start date
Donnie B said:
So two Federal security experts were asked to decipher each of the documents
noted in the indictment. Tell me again how he walks from all 31 charges?
Click to expand...
The thing you KEEP ignoring is he was a sitting president and he has 'legal' rights to keep them.............as has his predecessors.

Presidential Records Act
Selective Prosecution & A Lawless Warrant
Jurors Access to Classified Evidence
 
The thing I've noticed about Mista Guitah's (or however he spell's it) posts is that the first sentence/paragraph addresses the person/topic at hand. The rest of it is paragraphs about how dumb and uneducated the person is, and how smart people do it, and then how said person doesn't even compare and then how said person should try harder. Repeat.
 
Bag Man said:
The thing you KEEP ignoring is he was a sitting president and he has 'legal' rights to keep them.............as has his predecessors.

Presidential Records Act
Selective Prosecution & A Lawless Warrant
Jurors Access to Classified Evidence
Click to expand...
Wrong. Fuck you're a dumb ass. Go drink bleach. You know, for covid.
 
Now we're talking.
Here we go.

MistaGuitah said:
Any monkey could answer your dumb questions, but you apparently don't have the intellectual capacity of a monkey. Do I need to direct you to the 30,000 biblical manuscripts - written in dozens of languages and over a 5,000 year period and within 99.5% accuracy of each other - housed in museums and research facilities all over the world?
Click to expand...

Wrong.
The oldest Biblical manuscript we currently have is the Nash Papyrus. It dates to the 2nd Century BCE. This means that Biblical manuscripts range to a maximum of 2, 250 years ago, which isn't even half of what you contend.
Your claim of 5, 000 years ago would place earliest manuscripts in the the Year 3000 BCE. The earliest text from this period is the Kish Tablet, Mesopotamian Cuneiform on limestone.

Reference > https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-OR-00233/1

MistaGuitah said:
Oh wait, how can I expect someone so uneducated to be aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Click to expand...

Wrong.
The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise a collection of works spanning 400 years from the 3rd Century BCE to the 1st Century CE.

Reference > https://www.imj.org.il/en/wings/shrine-book/dead-sea-scrolls

MistaGuitah said:
As if that's not enough, I could point you to well-known contemporary philosophers who corroborate biblical history but you'd have far too much difficulty understanding it.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Philosophy is not fact.

MistaGuitah said:
"I asked you FOUR times," blah, blah. LOL! Are you so inept that you can't even get informed on rudimentary history? You say such stupid things like, "no academic credibility," blah, blah. Yet, you're so ignorant that you never stopped to think that thousands of academic institutions all over the world for centuries house, research, and teach biblical history because it's an entirely credible and scientific field of research.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
I never claimed research into the Bible as being non credible or unscientific. Such a proposition makes no sense.
Strawman argument and Ad Hominem attack and therefore irrelevant.

MistaGuitah said:
It's funny how you demand "academic credibility" when you have absolutely ZERO yourself. Not only that, but your audacity to blurt out nonsense would be something to marvel at if I wasn't so familiar with liberal stupidity. LOL!
Click to expand...

You're allowed a wank break I guess.

MistaGuitah said:
"I'd be happy to challenge and debate you on any topic of your choice," ah ha ha ha ha! Of course you would because you're acutely unaware of how ignorant you sound. LOL! I'd even let you assemble a panel to debate me alone and I'll still put you to shame any day of the week within 1 minute of you opening your mouth. Any topic huh? Ha ha ha! OK, so which topic do you want to debate as I have several areas of expertise? Hmm, let's see... Computer technology, biblical history, education, woodworking, business law, education law, politics, social science, just to name a few. LOL! Do you not understand how dumb your statement is? I would wipe the floor with you and of your constituents, but even as capable as I am, I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to challenge a debate on 'any topic.'
Click to expand...

So is this a no?
Stop talking shit, name your subject and question and let's go.

MistaGuitah said:
I'm certainly competent and confident enough to, but unlike you, I don't engage in debates I know nothing about. You, on the other hand, babble with no knowledge and try to argue with people far, far more qualified than you. It's a shame that you can't figure out how immensely stupid that kind of mentality is. Whatever little knowledge you have is not learned through study, scientific pursuit, or developed logic, rather, you amalgamate ignorance and somehow think that makes you qualified to open your big mouth. For ahead and show us where you have accomplished such pursuits. Ha ha ha!
Click to expand...

My qualifications and experience are irrelevant here and I don't need to trumpet them to walk around with a hard on.
Your sidestepping speaks for itself - answer my question > Name and reference the Bronze Age Bibilical manuscripts you mentioned.

MistaGuitah said:
So what, are you going to debate the whole nation of Israel, or Cambridge University, Oxford, world-class research museums, etc? LOL! Good luck with that. The fact is you're completely ignorant and incapable of mounting a sensible argument because your thinking is so deficient. Do you not understand that you don't even know what or where research is done but somehow think you're going to challenge an argument?
Click to expand...

More Strawman Arguments. Please try to stay on track.

MistaGuitah said:
Hey, if you're so bold to challenge highly educated people on "any topic," then go ahead and lay out for us how you would accomplish such a feat.
Click to expand...

I'm doing that now, fool.

MistaGuitah said:
You can't even substantiate in any credible way whatsoever, and certainly with any degree of "academic credibility," your exceedingly foolish rambling about, "

Man, what a load of senseless drivel. Ah ha ha ha ha! Which "semitic cult" would that be exactly? Name it and give us a credible account of it's history.
Click to expand...

Sure - the polytheistic Shasu and Canaanite religions which date back to around 3000 BCE, or a little bit earlier at the most.
This was absorbed into early Hebrew Yahwism, which presents multiple divinities known as Elohim in Genesis 6:2, of which YHWH was just one, who first presented himself to Moses who lived around 1300 BCE.
There's also references to other Arabian clans worshiping Yahweh from around the same time, or a hundred years earlier from Egypt at the time.

Reference > https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rqr7 (Siversten)

MistaGuitah said:
Tell us then exactly which historical accounts prove that Jews "absorbed elements of other religions." LOL! Given the fact that Israel has always consistently based their beliefs on the Torah and Tanakh, how is it you figure they "absorbed elements, blah, blah" when scripture had been 99.5% consistent throughout a 6,000 year history?
Click to expand...

Wrong.
See above. It's well established that Judaism combined Babylonian and Sumerian traditions with the Canaanite worship of YHWH, as far back as 2000BCE culminating in the first records of the Torah by 300 BCE.
There's even suggestions that YHWH was divinity linked to metallurgy, which would make sense given the technological transition from Bronze to Iron Age.

Reference > https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology...w-theory/0000017f-dc86-d3ff-a7ff-fda6aa390000


MistaGuitah said:
It's not that your ideas are underdeveloped but that you're so very far from any realm of basic understanding. You can't even apply basic logic, and if you could, you'd never say something so senseless.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Just try, try real hard, to get that little brain of yours to understand the fact that you NEVER, EVER read the bible, have ZERO theological knowledge, and most likely couldn't test beyond 5th grade literacy, but SOMEHOW in that tiny mind of yours, have this crazy idea that you not only know something about it but are so confident you issue challenges to people who've actually accomplished all the things you never could.

The fact is you humiliated yourself. Ignorance is noxious in itself, but the arrogance you have in your ignorance makes it that much more detestable. If you could've even asked just one sensible question, perhaps I might have the slightest degree of respect for you. However, everything you said deserves absolute ZERO respect. Not only do you NOT deserve respect, your brash ignorance is contemptible.
Click to expand...

This just resembles drunken ranting. The kind of stuff you hear crazy people yelling out in train stations. Not worth responding to.

Your turn.
 
Last edited:
jdel77 said:
Now we're talking.
Here we go.



Wrong.
The oldest Biblical manuscript we currently have is the Nash Papyrus. It dates to the 2nd Century BCE. This means that Biblical manuscripts range to a maximum of 2, 250 years ago, which isn't even half of what you contend.
Your claim of 5, 000 years ago would place earliest manuscripts in the the Year 3000 BCE. The earliest text from this period is the Kish Tablet, Mesopotamian Cuneiform on limestone.

Reference > https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-OR-00233/1



Wrong.
The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise a collection of works spanning 400 years from the 3rd Century BCE to the 1st Century CE.

Reference > https://www.imj.org.il/en/wings/shrine-book/dead-sea-scrolls



Wrong.
Philosophy is not fact.



Wrong.
I never claimed research into the Bible as being non credible or unscientific. Such a proposition makes no sense.
Strawman argument and Ad Hominem attack and therefore irrelevant.



You're allowed a wank break I guess.



So is this a no?
Stop talking shit, name your subject and question and let's go.



My qualifications and experience are irrelevant here and I don't need to trumpet them to walk around with a hard on.
Your sidestepping speaks for itself - answer my question > Name and reference the Bronze Age Bibilical manuscripts you mentioned.



More Strawman Arguments. Please try to stay on track.



I'm doing that now, fool.



Sure - the polytheistic Shasu and Canaanite religions which date back to around 3000 BCE, or a little bit earlier at the most.
This was absorbed into early Hebrew Yahwism, which presents multiple divinities known as Elohim in Genesis 6:2, of which YHWH was just one, who first presented himself to Moses who lived around 1300 BCE.
There's also references to other Arabian clans worshiping Yahweh from around the same time, or a hundred years earlier from Egypt at the time.

Reference > https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rqr7 (Siversten)



Wrong.
See above. It's well established that Judaism combined Babylonian and Sumerian traditions with the Canaanite worship of YHWH, as far back as 2000BCE culminating in the first records of the Torah by 300 BCE.
There's even suggestions that YHWH was divinity linked to metallurgy, which would make sense given the technological transition from Bronze to Iron Age.

Reference > https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology...w-theory/0000017f-dc86-d3ff-a7ff-fda6aa390000




This just resembles drunken ranting. The kind of stuff you hear crazy people yelling out in train stations. Not worth responding to.

Your turn.
Click to expand...
1686887945010.gif
 
jdel77 said:
Now we're talking.
Here we go.



Wrong.
The oldest Biblical manuscript we currently have is the Nash Papyrus. It dates to the 2nd Century BCE. This means that Biblical manuscripts range to a maximum of 2, 250 years ago, which isn't even half of what you contend.
Your claim of 5, 000 years ago would place earliest manuscripts in the the Year 3000 BCE. The earliest text from this period is the Kish Tablet, Mesopotamian Cuneiform on limestone.

Reference > https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-OR-00233/1



Wrong.
The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise a collection of works spanning 400 years from the 3rd Century BCE to the 1st Century CE.

Reference > https://www.imj.org.il/en/wings/shrine-book/dead-sea-scrolls



Wrong.
Philosophy is not fact.



Wrong.
I never claimed research into the Bible as being non credible or unscientific. Such a proposition makes no sense.
Strawman argument and Ad Hominem attack and therefore irrelevant.



You're allowed a wank break I guess.



So is this a no?
Stop talking shit, name your subject and question and let's go.



My qualifications and experience are irrelevant here and I don't need to trumpet them to walk around with a hard on.
Your sidestepping speaks for itself - answer my question > Name and reference the Bronze Age Bibilical manuscripts you mentioned.



More Strawman Arguments. Please try to stay on track.



I'm doing that now, fool.



Sure - the polytheistic Shasu and Canaanite religions which date back to around 3000 BCE, or a little bit earlier at the most.
This was absorbed into early Hebrew Yahwism, which presents multiple divinities known as Elohim in Genesis 6:2, of which YHWH was just one, who first presented himself to Moses who lived around 1300 BCE.
There's also references to other Arabian clans worshiping Yahweh from around the same time, or a hundred years earlier from Egypt at the time.

Reference > https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rqr7 (Siversten)



Wrong.
See above. It's well established that Judaism combined Babylonian and Sumerian traditions with the Canaanite worship of YHWH, as far back as 2000BCE culminating in the first records of the Torah by 300 BCE.
There's even suggestions that YHWH was divinity linked to metallurgy, which would make sense given the technological transition from Bronze to Iron Age.

Reference > https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology...w-theory/0000017f-dc86-d3ff-a7ff-fda6aa390000




This just resembles drunken ranting. The kind of stuff you hear crazy people yelling out in train stations. Not worth responding to.

Your turn.
Click to expand...
Another inerudite goof who thinks Wiki lookups give him credibility. LOL! First of all, I'll silence your ignorance with one simple fact: many bible manuscripts are copies of much older original manuscripts, just like every copy of books written today. Go ahead Mr. Big-Brain Wannabe and show us all with your Wikipedia degree where you can find an original manuscript for any book written today or even 100 years ago. The fact that we actually have original biblical manuscripts from thousands of years ago is unprecedented.

Not only that, you never even read the bible or did any research on bible history, so what pathetic knowledge you think you have about bible manuscripts is laughable. Ha ha ha ha ha ha! I marvel at your haughty ignorance. LOL! Babblers like you are a dime a dozen.

You should have read the bible because it accounts over 20 ancient books that were lost in the early biblical era. Those works would have been at least 5,000 to 6,000 years old. In fact, the Book of Job was written in 2200 BC which is over 4,000 years ago. That's not to the only canononical book dated thousands of years before Christ.

Because you're rambling little lecture is so cursory, you didn't even think to consider other written and etched biblical artifacts in history. There are stone tablets, stone fragments, and even a bowl dated as far back as 3,300 BC which is 5,300 years old. You really don't know what you're talking about at all.

Because you're so uneducated, you don't even know that the most ancient Hebrew history is written on the artifacts of disparate cultures, spanning from Assyria, Egypt, Persia, Turkey, etc. Obviously, Hebrews were scattered among Middle-Eastern nations thousands of years ago so it's common-sense (that you don't have) to consider Hebrew history expands well beyond biblical manuscripts and Israeli archeology.

We haven't even gone in-depth here. We can scientifically infer from ancient non-biblical texts and archeological artifacts that there were indeed ancient texts that parts of the Torah were copied from. Just because the original texts haven't been discovered doesn't mean they didn't exist. Any monkey with a brain can figure out that if 2,000 to 3,000 year old texts cite and reference older texts then there were indeed much older original works.

Man, stop making a fool of yourself. People like you have no depth of knowledge. How stupid to think you were going to just come along with your Google lookups and put me to shame when I've been researching these things for decades. LOL! You thought you were going to prove me wrong and make a fool of me but all you did was put your ignorance and incompetence on display. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I mean what on earth were you thinking to try such a thing? What in the world gave you the idea that an uneducated babbler like you could do some perfunctory, desultory internet searches and rival someone who is actually educated and knowledgeable?

That stupidity might convince a mindless liberal mob but you make a complete fool of yourself trying to take on people with real knowledge. It's obvious in your stupid comments that you don't even know how to do rudimentary, high-school level research because the way you went about your failed attempt at lecture is pitifully one-dimensional, shallow, and totally lacks the perspective of anyone who has done collegiate research. There are so many things you're not even smart enough to consider that makes your argument impotent and futile. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

jdel77 said:
"Blah, blah, blah." Everything you said = WRONG
Click to expand...

No need for "your turn" because I just put your dumb argument to death. Epic fail. You lose miserably as expected.
 
MistaGuitah said:
Another inerudite goof who thinks Wiki lookups give him credibility. LOL! First of all, I'll silence your ignorance with one simple fact: many bible manuscripts are copies of much older original manuscripts, just like every copy of books written today. Go ahead Mr. Big-Brain Wannabe and show us all with your Wikipedia degree where you can find an original manuscript for any book written today or even 100 years ago. The fact that we actually have original biblical manuscripts from thousands of years ago is unprecedented.

Not only that, you never even read the bible or did any research on bible history, so what pathetic knowledge you think you have about bible manuscripts is laughable. Ha ha ha ha ha ha! I marvel at your haughty ignorance. LOL! Babblers like you are a dime a dozen.

You should have read the bible because it accounts over 20 ancient books that were lost in the early biblical era. Those works would have been at least 5,000 to 6,000 years old. In fact, the Book of Job was written in 2200 BC which is over 4,000 years ago. That's not to the only canononical book dated thousands of years before Christ.

Because you're rambling little lecture is so cursory, you didn't even think to consider other written and etched biblical artifacts in history. There are stone tablets, stone fragments, and even a bowl dated as far back as 3,300 BC which is 5,300 years old. You really don't know what you're talking about at all.

Because you're so uneducated, you don't even know that the most ancient Hebrew history is written on the artifacts of disparate cultures, spanning from Assyria, Egypt, Persia, Turkey, etc. Obviously, Hebrews were scattered among Middle-Eastern nations thousands of years ago so it's common-sense (that you don't have) to consider Hebrew history expands well beyond biblical manuscripts and Israeli archeology.

We haven't even gone in-depth here. We can scientifically infer from ancient non-biblical texts and archeological artifacts that there were indeed ancient texts that parts of the Torah were copied from. Just because the original texts haven't been discovered doesn't mean they didn't exist. Any monkey with a brain can figure out that if 2,000 to 3,000 year old texts cite and reference older texts then there were indeed much older original works.

Man, stop making a fool of yourself. People like you have no depth of knowledge. How stupid to think you were going to just come along with your Google lookups and put me to shame when I've been researching these things for decades. LOL! You thought you were going to prove me wrong and make a fool of me but all you did was put your ignorance and incompetence on display. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I mean what on earth were you thinking to try such a thing? What in the world gave you the idea that an uneducated babbler like you could do some perfunctory, desultory internet searches and rival someone who is actually educated and knowledgeable?

That stupidity might convince a mindless liberal mob but you make a complete fool of yourself trying to take on people with real knowledge. It's obvious in your stupid comments that you don't even know how to do rudimentary, high-school level research because the way you went about your failed attempt at lecture is pitifully one-dimensional, shallow, and totally lacks the perspective of anyone who has done collegiate research. There are so many things you're not even smart enough to consider that makes your argument impotent and futile. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!



No need for "your turn" because I just put your dumb argument to death. Epic fail. You lose miserably as expected.
Click to expand...
I would love to know you in real life.

That is, if you're not institutionalized. To see you in the wild...it would be something.

Fascinating behavior. Truly.
 
Bagel and Creamcheese said:
Well, I'm sane and well adjusted for a start.
Click to expand...
You ARE joking.........correct?

There is zero evidence to date here.......so.......what have you got in the way of proof to support your ludicrous claim?

Oxford Dictionary defines an ALT as - an insane contrary POS who is deceitful 24x7 and antagonistic.
 
Bag Man said:
You ARE joking.........correct?

There is zero evidence to date here.......so.......what have you got in the way of proof to support your ludicrous claim?

Oxford Dictionary defines an ALT as - an insane contrary POS who is deceitful 24x7 and antagonistic.
Click to expand...
Well, you just posted proof you're an idiot.

I'm not an alt. And you know it too. That's PLS's little claim to infamy. Write your own material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top