seconded that notable!
Now that the blue states are rebelling against the feds, looks like some red countries and cities may start rebelling against the states. KEK.
A thread might be useful…..are these freshmen really what they seem?
Also Oxfam. There was an Oxfam dig that never quite got off the ground around maybe October. I think the caravan news sort of took over. But there is a lot on Oxfam fuckery.
Got a lot out of Icke's work way back when but he is rigid in many ways, does not open to new info that does not come from his own sources. (Like so many.)
Glad you asked, I wasn't sure, either
notable
discussion, IMO
My first reaction to the anti-lynching bill was, "Why needed?" I mean, it could be symbolic, but…I don't know, seemed like there was more to it than that. What you say makes perfect sense–that it's not so much about the need for a law but that a precedent has been set. A dangerous precedent.
Looks like you woke up the anti-Semitic shills with your comments. Do they search on the term "anti-Semitic"? (hope not!)
Happy, excited children, "New Q!!!" But I can just see some bozo saying the children are giving a Nazi salute. The world we live in.
why ask for one answer? there are as many answers as there are creative anons.
Recommend notable this discussion:
>>5323842, >>5323989 Is the Anti-Lynching Bill really a federal power grab?
Additional anons may chime in as well…..
baker
Still the same baker I talked with LB about notables & baking? This is what I especially enjoy, finding good anon discussions that are unique to this board.
Very thoughtful discussion & additional comments. I can just see how late-term abortion is the initial battering ram that breaks down public resistance to getting politically involved. Even my "I hate politics" friends did not bat me away when I told them about this. They knew they could not ignore it.
So it alerts people that "something terrible is happening." And they start paying attention.
Then comes the rollout of the "tsunami of evidence" that reveals the full scope of the situation–when the public is paying attention, not before.
notable
Agree that we resist going with unsubstantiated speculations that are about public figures, just because we want them to be true. That sounds like MSM, not us.
Same comment could be made about negative comments made here on people within Q movement that someone decides have "evil motives" (fame-fagging, paytriot, etc.). It's not that this does not exist but that it's counterproductive (not to mention unethical) to attack people without providing specific evidence to substantiate these charges. It happens often around here and it's often hard to tell whether it comes from angry or resentful anons or shills. To the extent it's anons, we should ALWAYS ask for evidence when someone slams a YouTuber (etc) just because they are not anon. Many good people out there are not anons (and it's not like anons have taken an oath of celibacy or something–like we're better than others).
If we really want to be better (meaning better than we have been before), we can try to be a little more careful when speaking about EITHER those who are clearly the opposition OR those who are with Trump but are more controversial for some reason. Wait til the evidence is there–or find it, if you can.
Hard to step down once you step up! ;-]
I can cast around for more notables, have just been enjoying myself for this bread. Much easier after a nap.
I've gotten a lot from David Wilcock, although he's not the most mature guy in the world.
You either buy into the ET narrative or not (or stay open but unconvinced), but just because the ideas are far out doesn't mean they can't be true. Remember what Q has said about the vastness of space, etc. And regarding Edgar Cayce: DW bears an uncanny resemble to him, which you probably know. Reincarnation is not part of the Western canon, but–again–that doesn't mean it's not true.