Political Joke Thread-Cartoons-Memes

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a community supported watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Register a free account to join the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including access to market data/charts and additional members only rooms (including one for trade/barter with the community).

foolsgold said:
Are the holy imams in your beloved Iran marrying 10 year old girls?
Click to expand...
On Epstein island you didn't need to marry them, right...oh, I object to any underage marriage whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim or any other religion.
 
Fatrat said:
On Epstein island you didn't need to marry them, right...oh, I object to any underage marriage whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim or any other religion.
Click to expand...
You call Jews pedophiles, yet marrying 10 year old girls is legal in Iran. Seems like a conflict to me. You also imply Trump is a pedophile without providing a shred of evidence.
 
Epstein files said it all...and,
The Bible does not contain a definitive minimum age for marriage. Instead, it reflects the practices of the Ancient Near East. While specific ages are rarely mentioned, historical and biblical contexts indicate that betrothals and marriages typically occurred soon after a girl reached puberty. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Cultural Context
In the ancient biblical world, childhood and adulthood were defined differently than they are today. Adulthood—and consequently marriageability—was often marked by physical maturity and the onset of puberty, usually around the ages of 12 to 14 for girls. Marriage was largely viewed as an economic and family alliance rather than an individual choice, and parents arranged these unions. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
 
Cultural and legalized pedophilia.
 
Fatrat said:
What they won't admit is they ALSO work for israel...
Click to expand...
Then that removes that subject from the decision process.


If both sides who could potentially win will both do something you won't like, then the logical choice would be to decide which one would be the better candidate based on other issues.

Because if your choice is to always support the ones that can't win, all the other issues just keep getting worse.

The Israel thing goes waaaay back. To think you'll get one guy into office that gonna reverse all those years, is silly.

Better to support, in the short term at least, someone that will help improve the most issues.

Then slowly start including some other issues. Israel could one of 'em.
.....but I hope everyone now sees what happens when one guy (or maybe a couple) take the hardcore stance when everyone else around them, is not.

It's a sure way to find oneself excluded to the point that you can't offer any help on anything.

To make a big change to a long entrenched way of doing things, requires much finesse and patience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…