I opened up the notables post to Dan Scavino new Truth Social images and the pictures were 'image deleted'.
I tried to open up the Dan Truth page, and it never loaded.
what is up with his new images ?
the numbers you circled represent the bank for which the bill was an issue.
4 is Clevland and 5 is Richmond.
The odds of having that combination with random bills is not high.And that they showed the numbers really does make it seem as though it's not a random handful of antique currency.
the signature on the 20 means it is either a 1950A or a 1950B issue. ( Ivy Baker Priest)
The 10 dollar note from Cleveland is a 1950 B issue with signatures of Ivy Baker Priest and Robert B. Anderson. They would be considered 'rag' quality to a currency collector, and there is nothing special about either of them, and they are not particularly valuable. The other 10 could be a Gold Certificate or a National Currency or a Silver Certificate, with no way to tell with a black and white photo of it.
the other thing that the posers do is make bland statements about scripture and claim to want to talk about it with someone.
anyone who engages invariably gets attacked and called names.
people who discuss scripture with each other usually don't devolve into calling each other slur words and making death threats.
am I supposed to counter with
"so you don't belong here?"
the way you let that just roll out of you shows me that you're not into scripture, yourself.
that's fine.
but why do you need to be a vulgarian?
how do you get 'rules' from a description of what some commonly do here?
the ones who say as you do 'can not handle' are often the same ones who are very quick with the ad hominum attack when their position is shown to be false or manipulative.
and then the accusations of 'you are weak' and all the other weakness of the insult is put into motion, and the origional topic is usually dropped by that type then, and they become ever more abusive.
you have free speech and when you use it like you do you show yourself as being a jerk and a bully.
many anon do not do the 'I wish I was Don Rickles and it was 1965 and such stuff was actually funny'
Don Rickles did what he did with love.
are you doing what you do here with love?
anon can tell the difference.
filtered for making up stuff.
filtered for being a shill who says others are when they are
filtered for abusing my good nature
filtered for wanting to cause distress in other people (and you fail at it, by the way)
I can tolerate it fine, but my question is why do you need to be a vulgarian?
the answer that 'it is funny' would have worked. Some don't find it funny.
It's better that you show who you are and what you are about because that allows others to form an opinion.
and the idea that saying 'oh, don't speak like that in front of me I find it offensive' is the same as 'you shall be banished and censored with rules that violate your rights' is just you making a case out of nothing.
you say offensive things and when people behave as expected you play the victim.
that's a common behavior that we see a lot of lately.
and even more common to those who do such behavior is to say 'oh, you give me an opinion, you must hate me, and everyone I consider of my type, oh you anti-somthing we're going to debank you now, and take away your rights, and call you names, and not let you vote for who you want.
yes, you're behavior is common and you posting this kind of stuff gives others a window into your dark-tunnel world.