You explain nothing.
You must be following orders from the DNC cult.
Seth Rich was sacrificed for the cult. Hillary is not my president thank goodness.
Do some honest research and don’t be so lazy.
Remember, Snopes and CNN can’t fact check patato!
Every. Single. Time.
4 Likes
never fails…
Because you slack jaws know nothing, you’ll believe anything.
Slow down Schlomo. You don’t want that little hat to fall off and get lost.
1 Like
Marine…Veteran of the Pacific…Ivy League Phi Beta Kappa…
I can’t begin to express my shame…
Yours?
1 Like
brush up, heidi…
My mother is Lutheran…I don’t qualify for the hat.
you come from a long line of bitter ciphers. don’t you…
I read your threads. You claimed earlier you weren’t a vet and now you are? Fuck off you stolen valor shill. I’m a vet and most others here are too.
7 Likes
never claimed to be a vet…father and uncle fought the Japanese…
Not with a ladle in the mess hall.
Hey Rabbi - whatcha doin over there?
takin’ names, pepe…
Nice catch. I was thinking DNC but now definitely JIDF.
3 Likes
What country was he kicked out of?
No. It doesn’t.
3 Likes
Born in the US…probably why he fought for it…
Yours?
How close to Valhalla do you get?
I have to admit that was good! 
Was he one of the MPs on the boats at Normandy shooting the goyim for not getting off fast enough?
1 Like
JIDF shill behavior:
-
Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
-
Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
-
Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved.They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern.They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
-
Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
-
Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a forum focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
-
Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin – an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium asthey might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more angerlater – an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how OBVIOUS it is that they play that game – where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
-
Inconsistence. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills(spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimedfirst-hand knowledge of it.
-
Time Constant. The response time factor. ANY board posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO ON A FORUM OR IMAGE BOARD ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
4 Likes