My almonds tell me that this is a planned effort to some degree to bring discussion into the news about child trafficking.
Once in the news, watch it flip on them again, and realize that the master troll was at it again…
ALL ANONS ALSO:
I "was" against the IBOR, being a staunch constitutionalist.
But:
A tweet by Rosanne made me think…
IF I own a lot of land in a town, and decide to dress up my land with ordinary sidewalks and meeting areas for people to use. This land is private, but does that give me the right to control the people's speech when on my "seemingly public" property?
Lets carry it a step further, what if I decided to "shoot" those people for trespassing (legal in some places if on private property), at what point is it considered DECEPTIVE and CRIMINAL to lure them onto my property under the premise they are in a "public space"…?
When you consider this, it makes sense why we should have rules governing private spaces that are PRESENTED as public and for public use.
Personally I own land, and I make efforts to make it appear PRIVATE. But understanding that if chose differently for nefarious reasons, it would be a relatively simple matter to control people…
Something tells me this is a "gateway" story to bring this into the mainstream subject of either immigration or child trafficking or both…
IBOR and NN were different.
I am for some basic protection of freedom of speech on what is "presented" as public forums/spaces.
THAT is as far as I endorse it.
Exactly, and the concept is similar if I built a city park on my private land within a city. Then started controlling by having the police arrest the parkgoers for trespassing whom have differing political views, effectively silencing the public forum that I do not agree with.
What if I own almost all of the city (think internet) and did the same thing?
Our laws are designed to be ethical as well, and if you present as public, you are public…
Can't have the best of both worlds…
I see your point is geared toward mobilizing the complainers instead of denying the cause.
My bad on interpretations.
(my friend Jim Bean may be effecting my logic.)
For that I am in total agreement.
We are Anons also, and to remain anonymous is to NOT sign a petition, so it is very much against our nature to come forth to put name to anything. And Q must realize this also.
Even if the cause is "just".
(I bet it is what causes Q the most grief among all of the nuances of chan culture.)
Let my almonds place a vegas bet…
The age of those "three women" will be less than can be rolled with 3 dice.
Kuru is a bitch…
And to conceal the sores and lesions with scarf and clothes.
She probably has a frame device custom built to keep her from flailing on the floor like a flounder…
I could wish she had a robotic device that was remote controlled and hackable, so an anon could take it over and ram her face into a pole again and again….
Sweet thoughts…