politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You're being incredibly picky on one line in the article that he adapted it when it was already adapted. The headline is correct, "Hegseth reads fake Bible verse from Pulp Fiction during Pentagon sermon".
He read it. And it's of course fake. I'm gonna say he had to know it was based on pulp fiction and not based on Ezekiel.
And even more absurd, he read it during a Christian prayer to a Christian congregation (also fucked up that this was at the Pentagon). He's willfully combining made up I'm 14 and edgy shit with actual religion, in a public and government setting. This is the epitome of a teenager talking smack on call of duty, except it's in public during official business.
I mean hey, I'm elated that this is an actual debatable opinion instead of insisting "no, bro, he totally adapted it". I don't assume he knew it was adapted from Pulp Fiction and not directly adapted from the Bible, because I have no way to know if he's watched Pulp Fiction or would even remember that quote. If he thought it went Ezekiel 25:17 –> CSAR 25:17, he would just accordingly assume the USAF piled on a bunch of stuff from the original – no different than Pulp Fiction already did. It's not impossible, but I have zero reason to assume it by default. If you think that he knew, god bless you, that's also a valid opinion, and I'm not going to stop you from assuming the worst of Kegsbreath.
As for being "picky" over "he adapted it", this isn't just a line (although it'd still be a blatant lie if it were); it's the subheader of the article, which, if you're not that familiar with journalism (not a dig; some people just aren't), is supposed to quickly summarize the piece/supplement the headline in a way that'd be too lengthy for the headline. The subheader is literally, in clear English, claiming that Pete Hegseth modified the quote himself, which is a complete load of disinformative bullshit just meant to make him look worse when this clear violation of separation of church and state is already plenty bad.
There's not much more to say. You basically found something that's barely more than a typo (they should have added another "read", but it's fully explained in the article).
All you need to say was "in case you read only the subheader, he didn't adapt it, it was already adapted" but instead you're running around screaming at everyone and everything "Lies lies it's all lies! Everything is lies! Don't believe anything! Shit rag! Disinformation!"
Mmmmmhhhhhmmmm. So I'm naïve to assume Pete Hegseth might not be big into Pulp Fiction, but I'm getting all picky with Middle East Eye instead of following these ridiculous mental gymnastics to arrive at a completely undeserved good-faith conclusion.
Hilarious.