>>4849641 lb, >>4849683 lb

Thanks anons, glad you liked it. Sometimes I get moved write what turns out to be essay-posting, but you never know whether it'll be wide miss where the only thought stirred is irritated you-wrote-so-much-text feels.

>took a very hard blow this week in my life

Me too actually, fren. I'll pray for ya -- for all of us -- to have patience and wisdom in these trying times. Patriots have each others' backs, our prayers do matter. That's another thing that moved me about the Covington thing, the brotherhood shown, the clear support they had for each other. It's in us, it was always what we were capable of, and goes to show what they stole from us. We'll get it back. Nothing can stop what's coming, right?

>>4849874

>multiple meanings

>no coincidences and also

Baker,

please be careful with this line of thinking about what constitutes a notable.

The above are illogical shill arguments to justify seeing patterns everywhere and jumping to wild conclusions. ''This is too low a standard for a research group that claims to deal in facts and reasoned argument."

Using this post as justification proves another leap in reasoning:

>>4849812

>So, in your opinion, threats and codes to assassinate the POTUS are not worthy of being notables.

This is a strawman argument.

IF the twat were sufficient to indicate a reasonable possibility of the above conclusion,

THEN yes, such content would be notable.

But to note rando bs, claim it has indications it doesn't, but should be noted anyway the conclusions themselves are noteworthy, is very facile thinking. It's this sort of thing the MSM takes and uses to mock us not-serious thinkers.

This anon is right,

>>4849781

but at least baker only put the twat itself in. The description of "fuckery afoot?" is a little dodgy, but at least didn't outright claim "threat of assassination."

Baker's justification for your complaint, however, indicates Anons need to always pay attention to notables as baker gathers them to make sure to step in to support baker w/feedback if they think baker's in error.

>>4850217

>The only way that happens is if POTUS and VP are dead.

Not true. Can be impeached/removed.

>on a day known for the assassination of a political figure.

Not really. It's MLK's birthday, not date of assassination.

Being conservative in jumping to conclusions isn't the same thing as not keeping all the data in mind and being open to gathering more.

>>4850277

It is an Anon speaking to Anons. You can choose not to debate the points on their own merit, but attempts at ad hominem don't strengthen one's case.

>>4850265

Not asking for or expecting "safety."

Am making an argument, feel free to pick it apart on its merits.