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.
You’re being incredibly picky on one line in the article
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!”
By a likely Qatari-backed propaganda outlet who refuse to disclose their owner or funding.
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.
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.