You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Or maybe you're just too stupid to realize that if kikebook admits the event happened, then you really have no leg to stand on saying it didn't. You're arguing with a tabloid about whether or not the event happened, and the kikes admit it.
What part of that is difficult for you to understand?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Crensch [S] 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago (edited ago)
You really don't understand when it's OK to use the opposition's censored/tailored information in order to show inconsistencies?
Or maybe you're just too stupid to realize that if kikebook admits the event happened, then you really have no leg to stand on saying it didn't. You're arguing with a tabloid about whether or not the event happened, and the kikes admit it.
What part of that is difficult for you to understand?
[–] cyclops1771 5 points -5 points 0 points (+0|-5) ago (edited ago)
So, no clue what "Judea" is still. Still not a single name in the article, and apparently, if a Jew said it, it must be true.
You want to add anything to your argument, or are you good with "If a Jew said it, it must be true" as your final
solutionanswer?[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)