View Full Version : Nice to know Rebekah Brooks went through the trauma of failed IVF

02-21-2014, 02:23 PM
Only shame is that her infertility wasn't down to ovarian cancer, the amoral ****.

02-21-2014, 02:25 PM

Classic Jorge
02-21-2014, 02:26 PM
Still, she's already been let off one charge, I can see a clean sweep acquittal here.

Looks like Tony's advice was decent after all.

Also, I seem to remember everyone telling me I was a paranoid conspiracy theorist when I said Hutton was a kangaroo inquiry with a pre-determined result.

Once more, Jorge has the last laugh :vsign:

02-21-2014, 02:29 PM
words are justified.

Her, not me :-|

02-21-2014, 02:31 PM

02-21-2014, 02:33 PM
Let's be honest: does anyone really give a toss? Really?

Ultimately, this thing has been hijacked by party politics (as these things always are), which has only served to incline most people not to care. It was interesting for a bit, but that was two years ago. Everyone's bored now and it just looks like a witch hunt.

02-21-2014, 02:35 PM
Of course, your lot did judge the chap who said that.

Then they nailed him to a cross and left him to die.

Bit off, that. :-(

Classic Jorge
02-21-2014, 02:37 PM
Also, it does feel like a bit of the old journalistic world has been laid to rest with all of this. I dont really think it's party political though, apart from she's a close friend of the PM and Coulson was his Netto Alistair Campbell.

And the crimes were actually pretty f**king despicable, let's not forget that.

Given that the british public is currently consuming their tiny minds with people playing crown green bowls on an ice rink I hardly think what they are interested in should be any barometer of validity.

Also, it's been worth it to prove that the Hutton sham was just that

02-21-2014, 02:38 PM
by procreating with a gentile?

02-21-2014, 02:41 PM
People only want one witch hunt at a time, j. And we've had Jimmy Savile since then, so Yewtree's of far more interest.

And how you can claim it's not party political when Tom Watson has used it as a means to get vengeance on Murdoch for his beloved Gordon I don't know.

02-21-2014, 02:44 PM
What of our pure, Nordic bloodlines, hmmm? They're b*ggered. That's what.

No offence, like.

Classic Jorge
02-21-2014, 02:52 PM
And I was bloody right about Hutton, I dont mean to go on, of course.

02-21-2014, 02:54 PM
Everyone gets bored and confused, so they pack it in. Sensible imo.

And it's Judicial Review, ffs! That's always a way of kicking the can up the road until nobody gives a sh*t anymore.

Classic Jorge
02-21-2014, 02:58 PM

02-21-2014, 02:58 PM
crucifixion was a Roman punishment, that he is naive to believe a made-up book like the bible (which the Romans heavily edited), and that the Romans persecuted the Jews at the time, drove them from their land which they renamed Palestine, and saw to it via their extended, Vatican-run empire that they were persecuted for another two thousand years. Bloody Romans. :rolleyes:

02-21-2014, 03:06 PM
And anyway, it was Caiaphas and his Sanhedrin who brought charges against and prosecuted JC. The Romans (as the governing power) simply (and, in the case of Pontius Pilate reluctantly) followed the ruling of the partially autonomous civil/religious authorities. You can't pin this one on Rome with your anti-Papist agenda.

Besides, the people who wrote the Bible, the great missionary Paul and the first Pope were Jews themselves.

Classic Jorge
02-21-2014, 03:09 PM

02-21-2014, 03:14 PM
but you can't take the priest out of the boy.

02-21-2014, 03:20 PM
I could contend that they took out bits where the Jews gang-raped the BVM, j. That doesn't mean it's true.

02-21-2014, 03:43 PM
Even if a high priest did feel the urge to eliminate a threat (which is probably fairly normal behaviour for senior religious nutjobs imo) it is the equating of an entire history of people with the alleged crimes of an individual (or group of individuals) which renders the whole thing blatantly racist.

As you well know.

Oh and as for the bible - why believe any of it? Spare ribs? Pillars of Salt?

02-21-2014, 03:54 PM
Unfortunately for the Jews, however, he was the real deal - the Christ, the Son of God.

Whether you believe that or not is immaterial. To many, many generations it was unquestionable and unquestioned FACT. Just as it was that the Jews had him topped.

So, with hindsight, killing him was a somewhat unfortunate political decision. And the Jews would have every right to feel a touch aggrieved that they're still getting hammered for it were it not for the fact that they were the ones who came up with the whole 'The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons' schtick.

You can't really be part of a religion that preaches that sort of mindless vengeance and then complain when people avenge the sins of your fathers upon you imo.

02-21-2014, 04:05 PM

02-21-2014, 04:13 PM
He may have had his motives for hatching this alleged plot, but all Jews get blamed.

02-21-2014, 04:29 PM
Again, an error in retrospect you'd have to say.

02-21-2014, 04:33 PM