>>6221921

like it's the exchequer's money in the first place

and like spending amounts are in any way whatsoever attached to revenues

always hated that argument- that any reduction in taxes "costs"

taxes are theft, plain and simple

/end rant

sure that guy needs digging, but so does this so obviously lobotomized and comped author

>>6222000

>>6222054

>you were chosen for a reason

does anyone else struggle with this one?

looking forward to moar clarity on this point

>>6222093

>>6222155

and why us specifically

if the (you) used by q was specific to anons

that means we were somehow selected, targeted, and brought here individually

if that's the case, that's what anon can't figure

and look forward to clarity on

and yes it is more than a little scary

but the good news is what we do know happens at the end

>>6222208

glad to have you here, fren

i expect we will get tothe bottom of all this

and do hope the anons get together someday