too many God in Palestine, they not burden me .... whatever, Skeykh Hisyam Kabbani be like "I will fight along side Imam Mahdi"... yeah his fight along Imam Mahdi with reincarnation foam as 3 years old kids...now He already dies and his picture been stick in Palestine side of street wall....crazy
i'd be willing to bet anything, if lawsuits started being paid out from their pension, a lot of this wouldn't happen. cops have a hard job, but that doesn't mean they should operate outside the bounds of the law
president kenendy life was terminated for 2 reasons ,,, 1/the one reason was the peace talks with ussr 2/but the second one was more deadly decision,, he wanted to control the federal reserve bank,,,,, face it man athens greece
Too much misinformation in this video. Drugs are Drugs! They should all be illegal. You don't recover from a drug problem by using Drugs. You cant grow Delta 8 plants, they don't exist. Its marijuana, say it. They chemically alter Delta 9 to Delta 8 after its grown and reapply it to to the plant. Violation of the constitution however is wrong.
His sins is unbearable.he is responsible for the killing & distorting millions of lives. He is condemned.how will he escape the paybacks from cursing souls ?
You know there was some weird Home of the Mo stuff going in in that Skull & Bones Frat. Look at John Kerry's face. " I have been abused and blackmailed " is written all over it. GW Bushes face says, " I am too dumb to know what happened to me, Heck I kinda liked it"
Made me sick to watch Bush jr and Michelle Obama pass candy to each other and the MSM ran with it as a feel good fluff piece. War Criminal and Wife of a War Criminal all buddy buddy hating Trump. Awwww how cute.
Here. This. Disgraceful. And the west just fall in behind. And Israel continue on in there genocidal and war crime efforts!! Accountability and justice Now!
(Part 1 of 2) Since @apollocobain8363 will only delete his comment if I post this rebuttal under his, as he has several times in the past, I'm replying here so as to place a refutation of his false claims and innuendos beyond his ability to delete. "The primary gap seems to be between Shakespeare the theater investor and "Shakespeare" the author. Two very different skill sets." Well, then let me cut the Gordian knot by telling you that there was no "Shakespeare the theater investor". Theatre companies were not floated on the stock market and they didn't offer IPOs. Shakespeare was a sharer in the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men, and sharers in the company had to be actors of some distinction within the company, because they kept the number of sharers deliberately low and limited. Early modern theatre was a closed shop. In the LCM/KM, to be specific, there were only eight sharers, and Shakespeare was admitted among the second group of four when the company was founded in 1594. Whenever a sharer wanted to leave, they either bought ought his shares between them or allowed a new actor to become a sharer in the company. Of course, you could have just come back to the thread where I told you this originally, rather than starting a new one where you falsely pretend that you have never been told of this information before. "'Shakspere' (and similar spellings) was the 11th most common surname of the era." Citation sorely needed. "So common in fact that there is at least one more 'William Shakspere' in a town near Stratford in the same era." Gosh, you mean a rare Warwickshire surname can be found in Warwickshire? Astonishing! Surely that must prove how common it actually is! I've got an even more remarkable coincidence. When I was a kid, I grew up near to two people who shared my name. In fact, we were so near that we shared the same house! Isn't that uncanny? "We see in a 1595 document from the Pipe office, payment of 10 pounds per performance paid to a threesome that includes Kempe, Burbage and 'Shakespeare'. We have no plays written by Kempe or the Burbages so while this document is evidence of performance it is not evidence that any of the three wrote plays." Why the quote marks around Shakespeare, when you don't include them around Kempe and Burbage? In any case, it wasn't being offered as evidence that William Shakespeare wrote plays, but to refute your claim that "there is no record of Stratford [Shakespeare-for those who may be reading this thread, this moron thinks he's being cute by referring to Shakespeare by the place name where he grew up instead of by his surname] being in London before 1595 or acting before 1598." Since you now concede that "this document is evidence of performance", and it documents performances by a _London-based_ theatre company of which William Shakespeare was a member before the Queen in 1594, I think the question may be regarded as definitively settled in my favor. "Stratford Shakspere is linked conclusively to the Burbages' Globe theater by his Will (aka Last Will and testament) in which he leave a small amount of money for Burbage, Heminges and Condell to buy themselves rings to remember him. So with that we have proof that Stratford Shakspere and London theater investor "Shakespeare" are the same person but no evidence that he wrote or could write the 37 plays now commonly attributed to him." On the contrary, we have abundant evidence that he wrote the plays attributed to him, as well as the non-dramatic poems. First off, we have the narrative poem _Venus and Adonis_ published with his name in the dedication in 1593. The same thing holds true in 1594 with _The Rape of Lucrece_ . By 1598, his name begins to appear on plays, starting with the first quarto (extant) of _Love's Labour's Lost_ and the second quartos of _Richard III_ and _Richard II_ . After this year, no new Shakespeare play will be published in quarto without his name on it, though some quartos previously anonymous will remain anonymous (e.g., _Titus Andronicus_ ). In 1599, his name will be published on _The Passionate Pilgrim_ about which more later. In 1601, his name is attached to the poem "Let the bird of loudest lay" in _Love's Martyr_ by Robert Chester. In 1609, his name will be published on the title page of the quarto edition of his sonnets. Edward Alleyn records his purchase of "Shaksper sonetts" for 5d. in the same year. Alleyn was the leading actor of what was then Prince Henry's Men, the leading rivals of the King's Men, and therefore both excellently positioned to know and excellently motivated to blow the whistle on any fraud if he had perceived any. And yet he attributed the poems to Shakespeare without demur. Finally, in 1623, we have the First Folio. In the dedicatory epistle, Shakespeare's theatrical colleagues John Heminges and Henry Condell, whom you have already conceded were known to the Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon, identify the playwright by name as Shakespeare, call him the author of "his plays", and identify the author as their "Friend, & Fellow [i.e., fellow actor]". In the commendatory verses, we have statements from Ben Jonson, in at least two of whose plays we know Shakespeare performed; we have verses from Hugh Holland, who also contributed verses to commemorate Jonson's _Sejanus_ , which is one of those two plays in which Shakespeare performed, we have Leonard Digges' verse, and he was the stepson of Thomas Russell of Alderminster, a near neighbor of William Shakespeare in both Stratford and London and one of the two overseers (executors) of his will; and finally a verse by "I. M." identified as James Mabbe, who knew Leonard Digges and in whose copy of Lope de Vega's _Rimas_ Digges wrote a lengthy marginal note in the form of a letter to a man named Will Baker praising Shakespeare's sonnets and asserting they should be as highly thought of in England as Lope de Vega's were in Spain and advising him that if he doesn't like Shakespeare then he must never read "the Spanish poet". Nor is that the limit of Digges' testimony. His First Folio verse speaks of Shakespeare's "wit-fraught book" (meaning the First Folio), identifies the plays _Romeo and Juliet_ and _Julius Caesar_ as his, and speaks of his "Stratford monument". Later, Digges would write a second and much longer poem evidently intended for the Second Folio (its reference to the "Fortune's younger brethren" dates it c. 1630 and it also self-plagiarizes the line about the "wit-fraught" book), but published in the 1640 collected edition of Shakespeare's poetry. It length was probably what got it excluded from the Second Folio, since the consortium of printers was already paying enough for the finest crown paper, according to the gripe in William Prynne's _Histrio-mastix_ , published just a year after the Second Folio. In the poem, Digges starts off by affirming "that he was a Poet none would doubt", mentions Shakespeare's company as the King's Men and their primary theatres as the Globe and Blackfriars (asserting that the reason offerings at these theatres no longer please is that they're being compared with Shakespeare's works and found wanting), he glances at Ben Jonson's rivalry with Shakespeare and asserts that Shakespeare's plays were better box office while Jonson's could "scarce defray the sea-coal fire", and finally names at least six and possibly seven plays by identifying important characters: _Julius Caesar_ (again with a self-plagiarized line, which is how I can relate the rather oblique reference in the First Folio to this play, because now he explicitly mentions Caesar, Brutus, and Cassius), _Much Ado About Nothing_ , _Twelfth Night_ , _Othello_ , and the _Henry IV_ plays (and therefore also possibly _Henry V_ , since Hal grows up to become king). Combine that with his First Folio poem, and we have testimony that he also wrote _Romeo and Juliet_ and was from Stratford, where he is now honored with a monument. This ties together everything you're desperately trying to keep separate in one package. Other evidence includes the fact that Thomas Heywood, in his _Apology for Actors_ remarks that William Jaggard included some of his poems in a third edition of _The Passionate Pilgrim_ and that he was worried that people would believe that he had stolen from Shakespeare, and that Shakespeare was also angry with Jaggard for misusing his name. Interestingly, we have extant copies of that third edition, and the one thing that separates the early from the later texts in the print run is that William Shakespeare's name has been taken off the front page. John Webster also praised "the right happy and copious industry of M. Shakespeare" in a list of six other playwrights: George Chapman, Ben Jonson, Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, Thomas Dekker, and Thomas Heywood. Eight or nine years previously he had written a meta-theatrical induction scene for _The Malcontent_ by John Marston in which five King's Men actors played themselves: Richard Burbage, Henry Condell (of Folio fame), William Sly, John Lowin, and John Sincklo. So he knew the composition of the King's Men when he wrote that note praising their house playwright, and he'd offer his next solo-authored tragedy, _The Duchess of Malfi_ , to the King's Men to premiere at about the time Shakespeare was authoring his last collaborative works with John Fletcher for the King's Men.
(Part 2 of 2) Nor does that end the story. In 1647, the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio was published and dedicated to Philip Herbert, the Earl of Montgomery and Pembroke, and the dedication drew attention to the fact that he had had the First Folio dedicated to him with "the flowing compositions of the then expired Sweet Swan of Avon, SHAKESPEARE". The first name on the dedication was John Lowin, the man who was in the induction scene in _The Malcontent_ and who acted with Shakespeare in Jonson's _Sejanus_ . So that's _another_ testimony from a theatrical contemporary saying Shakespeare wrote his own works. "Any one of the following items would prove that theater-investor Shakspere could write: margin notes, a letter to his wife, a practiced signature, payment for writing, arrest for writing or the mention of writings / manuscripts / poem or source materials in his will." Yet your list doesn't include title page or dedication page attributions, Stationers' Register entries, Master of the Revels accounts entries, contemporary anthologies that name Shakespeare as a contributor, nor any testimony from contemporaries, like those I've listed above, saying that William Shakespeare was an author. You wouldn't be attempting to massage the evidence to get the result you want, would you? "The works of Shakespeare are from the perspective of a high born English nobleman -- falconry, succession to the throne, arranged marriages, etc. -- none of which overlap with the life of the Stratford man." By the same reasoning, Euripides of Salamis couldn't have written about the foundation of a new religion in _The Bacchae_ because he wasn't a god. Indeed, the focus on gods, heroes, and aristocrats in the Greek drama is clearly antithetical to democratic Athens, so all of the extant plays must have been written in Sparta by her hereditary kings. If you insist on looking at the content of the plays and reasoning that the author must be of the same class as those portrayed, then you're going to profoundly misunderstand most of early modern drama. They focused on kings and nobles because it was believed that only they had the heft to underpin a tragedy, which was a fall from greatness. They got that idea from Aristotle's _Poetics_ mediated through Horace. You might as well argue that because of the frequency with which they appear in Golden Age sci-fi that the authors of these books must have been extraterrestrials. As for falconry, you really stumbled when you chose that as your representative example because there's more detailed information about falconry in just a few lines of Act I, sc. 3 of _A Woman Killed with Kindness_ by Thomas Heywood than there is in the entire Shakespeare canon. Within this short space of less than two dozen lines we're treated to the following jargon: "taken at the souse" "plume" (as a verb) "rebeck" "gets" (as a noun) "jesses" "bells" "at the querre" "at the mount" "at the ferre" "renew'd" (in the sense of attacking again) "Milan bells" "mounting" "petty singles" "long singles" "terrials" "rifler" If Thomas Heywood could accomplish that, what would stop Shakespeare from using an image of heartstrings as "jesses", which was a poetic commonplace throughout early modern writing? The fact is that Shakespeare's authorship is established on the basis of the documentary evidence and contemporary testimony and that there is none whatsoever for any so-called "authorship candidate" writing Shakespeare's works instead of him. There is a certain degree of identified collaboration, but it occurs in a minority of plays and was solely undertaken with other playwrights from the public theatres, not scribbling aristocratic dilettantes. Their contributions do not exclude Shakespeare's because they were working together. Indeed, collaboration is fatal to the conspiracy theory of secret aristocratic authors, because how could the collaborative process not have broken down when one party must remain forever unknown to the other party? I can keep on reposting my comments as many times as you keep on deleting and reposting yours. As John Adams aptly observed, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Rember the C.I.A has sxrewed your country and they will say anything to keep with the people now. If you belive an "ex" c.i.a. officer then you are part of the problem.
Governments never allow True Historical Facts into the Educational Systems so Future Generation are forced to live Under the Falsehoods of Humanity's Past.
That was misconduct, and the manner it was treated is a coverup. I believe it was criminal. Is this America? It's time for accountability! The families pain is heartwretching. Vote blue 💙
