Anonymous ID: eccc11 Feb. 4, 2020, 9:57 a.m. No.8022136   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>8022087

For future reference, there are a number of aggregators sites that were built just for you, so you can search them.

qresear.ch

qmap.pub

the spreadsheet

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Efm2AcuMJ7whuuB6T7ouOIwrE_9S-1vDJLAXIVPZU2g

and more.. they are in the top of every thread - again, all created for you.

Anonymous ID: eccc11 Feb. 4, 2020, 10:01 a.m. No.8022172   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2204 >>2563

>>8022123

>Paul said no one has acknowledged who the whistleblower is, including Adam Schiff, so how would Chief Justice Roberts know to block the question with a person's name.

This was the genius of it, it put them in a double-bind and a truly impossible situation.

 

I love this movie!!

Anonymous ID: eccc11 Feb. 4, 2020, 10:20 a.m. No.8022362   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2373

>>8022198

You are welcome to "abandon ship" - no one will stop you. You are likewise welcome to understand that there are anons who disagree with you, or your particular religious beliefs, and yet their point of view is just as valid as yours. You are welcome to ignore those that bother you (scroll by or filter) and actually contribute something meaningful here, or not.

Anonymous ID: eccc11 Feb. 4, 2020, 10:26 a.m. No.8022435   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2764

>>8022306

>>8022356

I meant literally on what legal grounds? He has standing, but there has to be some legal principle to ask for an injunction. So it was not rhetorical.

I do understand this and other ways are how they cheat, but I'm really curious what his claim will be.

>>8022373

My mistake, then! Usually it's rhetorical I cannot recognize, sorry.

Anonymous ID: eccc11 Feb. 4, 2020, 10:36 a.m. No.8022535   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2541

>>8022419

Anon, please, please provide:

tweet link

archive link

screenshot

text of tweet

 

How to archive?

archive.today also archive.fo or archive.is (same site)

or

web.archive.org

→ drop the link & hit save/enter

 

Otherwise, no matter how interesting it is, it can't be made Notable and without any sauce, how can we enjoy it??

Anonymous ID: eccc11 Feb. 4, 2020, 10:39 a.m. No.8022553   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2560 >>2583

>>8022525

Your personal beliefs don't define this movement, nor do they apply to anyone or everyone else. It sounds more like seeing/reading things you don't like, are contrary to your particular sect of your religion, ideas you cannot understand or accept are more an existential threat to your own faith in your religion.

Anonymous ID: eccc11 Feb. 4, 2020, 10:49 a.m. No.8022648   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2674 >>2695 >>2712 >>2783

>>8022541

That's not a dumb question at all.

I usually keep a tab open for archive.today (main site, it will resolve to archive.fo or archive.is). Whenever I want to archive something, I put the original link in the text box, click search, which takes me to the main page (link will be in the red box, then click Save. In that tab a script loads everything on that page, then opens up the archived page in the same tab (pics related).

 

If you want to find out if a page has ever been archived before, you can go to the main page and put the link in the black box and it will check for you. Or, if you already have it open after having archived something else, you just put it into the text box at the top of the page and click search.

 

The same thing holds for archive.org - when you put the link in the text box, it searches for it and displays the results. If it hasn't yet been archived, it will tell you and you have the option to archive it.

 

There are also browser add-ons that aid in archiving, for both those sites, and are available for Opera, FF & Brave, as well as Chrome. They make it easy as one click sometimes, so it will automatically archive it in a new tab for you!

 

If you have any other questions, let me know.

Anonymous ID: eccc11 Feb. 4, 2020, 10:58 a.m. No.8022729   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2754

>>8022560

It's sad that you actually think that anything other than your beliefs is "evil." That says more about you and your own beliefs than anything else.

>>8022583

>we

<attempts to police board

<attempts to thought police

<attempts to police anons participation

So sad.

 

No more replies to insecure board police.

Anonymous ID: eccc11 Feb. 4, 2020, 11:04 a.m. No.8022820   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>8022695

I think they rotate depending on traffic load, but that's just a guess. I'm just grateful it exists!

 

>>8022716

That is something quite common. However, use of the Swastika by German National Socialist party still didn't make the symbol "evil." It is the constant propaganda that portrays that group as "evil" and by extension the Swastika as evil. So in essence, the symbol was never used by evil people or for evil purpose, it is just portrayed by evil people (cabal) that way in order to trick the masses into thinking that the symbol (and that group they demonize) as evil.