Anonymous ID: f41454 Dec. 31, 2019, 4:58 a.m. No.7672232   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>7672220

they are here tyring to smear.

and we are here to bring them fear.

they want to shut us down again.

 

everyone knows who puts the stuff here

and the same pepole do the 'oh you mean . . . . blah blah blah. . . about the topic . . . blah blah blah . . .that we put up and promote constantly . . . ha ha ha , it's chan culture . . .'

and other crap like that.

 

they have been putting up the same operational 'must shut down' because 'most important people' bullshit for a couple of days.

 

we must say 'no it isn't

'

Anonymous ID: f41454 Dec. 31, 2019, 5 a.m. No.7672239   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2257

>>7671939

everytime an effort comes to drive a wedge between the people and the president it is a fail.

the woman who says these things is one such wedge.

she is a fail.

 

it wasn't a 'stress test' it was a hatchet attack.

Anonymous ID: f41454 Dec. 31, 2019, 5:09 a.m. No.7672279   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2309

>>7672257

the tone of her scold is a 'know it all progressive'.

she is not a MAGA she is a MANHATTAN Publishing House.

 

'illrelevent websites' she says, like a gate keeper.

do you keep people with infectuous disease close at hand?

she has a point of view that is 'i am more iportant than you are'.

she is exactly the kind of person who is the reason that in some parts of America Republicans are hated.

she's a gate keeper and a troll and infiltrator.

 

how do you make excuses for her level of ignorance?

Anonymous ID: f41454 Dec. 31, 2019, 5:21 a.m. No.7672356   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>7672309

ignore people like her at your peril. They say things as if ironically then try to hold you to it.

people like here personify 'swamp'

she needs to be moved away from the election website.

Anonymous ID: f41454 Dec. 31, 2019, 5:25 a.m. No.7672379   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2392

>>7672369

 

you have no idea as to the origin of the group you mention.

Egyptian History, as all history, is usurped by them.

to say it came from Egypt is saying something that you can not prove.

Anonymous ID: f41454 Dec. 31, 2019, 5:31 a.m. No.7672415   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2428

>>7672386

whose is fighting?

you'd like that.

the woman is dangerous to have in the campaign being as tone-deaf and elitist as she is.

 

be gone with her from the election website.

she is a tyrrant and an excluder.

she's a 'mean girl' type.

 

you think that's fine? To have that kind of mean-bitch scold person in charge of a campaign website?

Anonymous ID: f41454 Dec. 31, 2019, 5:41 a.m. No.7672472   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2505 >>2513

>>7672454

who are you signalling?

you use red text in an operational way.

you do what you say other might do.

you are acting as a clow/shill/duffus here.

yes we see what you do and yes, your efforts here are ineffectual.

Anonymous ID: f41454 Dec. 31, 2019, 5:52 a.m. No.7672525   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2535 >>2583

>>7672505

good point about truth.

and since it is it's own defense, as you say 'Its own defense', you say 'truth is its own defense' so the question I had was 'who were you signalling' with your word in such bold red, that's supposed to be used for saying notable, but you used it almost like a scripting engine would, delimited, like you are signalling someone, some cause, some effort.

but truth is its own defense so attack is not part of the need for it becuase attack is not the same as defense and thus your whole point seems to be talkiing in intellectual circles and I want to know if your red text was or was not an operational word, as I suggested, and that you are not part of some coordinated effort with people who you would know, and thus they are not anons but frenz of yours.

and I was wondering about your messaging because I am a person who fetishizes on infromation about process for signaling and systems, systems functions, operational control of machines (not people).

 

so there it is, my query, which you ignored. Also you use no red text in this response, why not?