>>4801288 PB
Ok, let me understand. What is the "it" to which you refer? What is well-documented? Sincere question. I really want to understand what this is all about, from your POV.
>>4801265 PB
I asked the same q recently about alternatives to Drudge, anon, and got the same answer. I was looking for consolidators, like you probably are. I started looking at old breads to see which publications are often cited here and made a list. That's helpful because, as I have discovered, not all sources are created equal on this board, for better or worse. Not a criticism, just useful to know.
Ok, faggots, I'm the one responsible for the pro-Tucker post. Want to tell me your arguments against him? Please be SPECIFIC–not broadside attacks.
Look I wasn't bucking for notable only having a discussion. Not my call, didn't ask. But the discussion got so rank that I'm glad it's notable because I am dead set against attacking ANYBODY without real evidence to support that attack. That's what the DS does, not us.
That's not an argument, anon. What a stupid tool to use against a fellow patriot.
USE YOUR WORDS, if you have any.
I respect your opinion, anon, but am not a "one issue" person. There are many patriots with whom I disagree on important issues. It does not stop me from appreciating their insights on unrelated issues.
Re >>4800729 Chinese Teen Who Sold Kidney for an iPhone Is Now Bedridden for Life
Unfortunately, the post as it stands does not mention the organ trafficking and falun gong executions to harvest organs. That's the main thing the article is about. I was capping (I'm not the OP) but ran out of time. See CAP.
Thx anon for a highly informative post. News blackout is intense. I want to know what organizer is an alleged rapist, part of the digg on previous caravans. (Hoped it was done. Sigh.)
notable
Thx anon. Could not respond right away, feel like I'm been in a fire fight and it's really the last thing I want. "Expand your thinking." Easier said than done. Blessings to you and to all of us imperfect human beings.
I hear that's only for paying, hi-value 8chan members….KEK.
Thx anon for your thoughtful post.
thx much, digging a lot then, reading less.
Beer, too?
not the op with the great GITMO plane meme but maybe I can do something with "traitors fly free". Deserves memorialization.
WaPo clickbait??
I was pretty surprised at all the flak this pro-Tucker post caused. I pull stuff off TC's show several times a week for posting. There are really good interviews eg, on the leftist theory underlying no prosecution of the homeless for crimes, the normalization of abortion for children 8-11, and the new anti-fun law in NY. Also respect Hannity and Dobbs, also Laura Ingraham–she has a good sense of humor and did a singularly impressive town hall on murder in Chicago last month.
Haha. That's supposed to be the the new anti-GUN law, not the anti-FUN law! Although if the shoe fits…..
That awful moment when you realize you pressed
"NEW REPLY" instead of "SELECT/DROP/PASTE FILES HERE"
NOOOOOOOOO!
There are many good people out there who are not Q followers. Most don't comment at all on Q, which is fine–their lives didn't start on 4chan. Most of them speak to a….less iconoclastic audience. They want to preserve their credibility, which is fine.
We can't expect everyone who is a patriot to be a Q patriot. Or to agree with 100% of everything Q says.
I can only believe that those who have such high expectations of others are either very young or camp followers. In either case, they are certainly capable of learning to think more broadly–which Q encourages.
I'm glad you mentioned the phrase "controlled opposition." Good thing to ponder on.
This phrase is widely used but what does it mean, anyways? Seems to me it can easily become a catch-all to describe anything someone doesn't like–much like "hate speech." (This is not a critique of your usage, which makes sense.)
How do we know the difference between a more or less "straight" or sincere report versus a "controlled opposition" report? What specifically is the criterion for separating the two?
I'm guessing that no one can say.
The idea of controlled opposition seems to me useful for discussing the idea that some reports that seem ok may be published for less-than-legit reasons.
The problem is saucing that claim. Without sauce, a claim is just a claim.
Totally agree. Good discussions are gold.