>>5129463 lb
>>5129488 lb
ouch, weak.
let's try again:
what's your answer to >>5129392 ?
>you're trying to cover up facts regarding child trafficking.
those are some awfully bad optics ya got there
weak attempt at narrative control.
anons who actually read the crumbs
and can read through the lines know.
> funny how they always ignore the facts regarding Israel and child trafficking.
yup.
haven't counted all its posts previous bread, but it's a LOT.
so much effort shows dedication.
but… there's no actual "counter". no real arguments.
just very weak mockery and projected sexual fantasies.
it's rather embarrassing for them
>Muh Jooooooo
why are you afraid to type "Jew"?
you put that on pause when called out on it last night
>Brady said Bundchen has told him he's lucky he married a "good witch."
damn, threats, even.
sick.
but seriously, why "Jooooos"?
That's still not an answer.
Amazing how much you squirm when just a few anons bother to engage.
What is your rationale for typing out "muh joos" or "Jooooos" or all these variations that avoid saying "jew"?
> a little Muh Joo now and then
good god, the projection…
i leave you alone most if not all the time, but lately you MuhJoooos "anons" have been so spamming you got me to engage.
and you apparently won't get a proper narrative to give an answer before the end of this bread.
< same keywords, same tripe, same graphics day after day.
just like all the MuhJOOOS shillls.
so why do you use JOOOS if it's just putting you in the same category as
< same keywords, same tripe, same graphics day after day.
i mean, if you'd want your points to be made
and you were a sincere concerned anon,
since you post so much, you wouldn't want to be wasting your time now, would you?
> for whatever reason
and if try to ask them politely
you get Brock BJ copypasta and stock answers.
odd, innit?