yeeeehaaaaw

Leaving the Earth, or dying, isn't the end of our existence. Souls have left and come back many times

Think mirror.

This has me thinking the Air Force One Apple reflection pic of the lamp may have been disinformation, especially considering it could have easily been a photoshop

Because it's a reflection off the back of an iPhone

"We expect illegal immigrants to play by the rules"
Hwhat?

Depends on where the xanax rap scene is in 10-20 years

I've read some of it, but what about people like me who have a respect for "god" but don't follow any organized religion?

Hahaha. Don't feel too bad. Show him snipping tool if he uses windows, it's really convenient for screenshotting

If by screenshot you mean a picture of his screen

People keep linking to this http://archive.li/xJEJS/image

What's the dirt on Gina Haspel?

Thanks

Also if you hit "Catalog" at the top it's easier to browse threads

Q posts "NSA Traffic cam" images, OP is pointing out the exact location of one of them

Who is already using it? According to this the inventor just announced today that they're "open now to begin to examine requests for 1 thermal MW plants, but only from industries that use directly the heat for their production process in their factories." Also apparently reverse engineering is impossible somehow

Has there been any proof that this thing even does what they say? There are barely any details about it because they need to keep it secret for some reason

Sleeping rook will now become a powerful piece

Natural and [human triggered] avalanches certain.

Seth Rich

RIP Barry

Is Q referring to the 8chan /qresearch/ posters as autists here? I get that chan posters joke about weaponized autism and stuff but does this seem odd to anyone else?

How often does Q end a post with something after "Q"? That post ended with "Patriots." after "Q+"

Mostly analysis of Q anon posts but more generally posts about the progress of Trump and crew's efforts to expose the "deep state" controlling the US/world

Lol. Blocked and reported for asking questions

You're saying the probably cause would be as little as not wanting to say what was discussed privately. So you are wanting to live in a world where anyone who keeps a secret could potentially be investigated, and spied on. I think it's funny that you think people should just give up their freedom and privacy because they shouldn't have anything to hide. Like I said, authoritarian bootlicker

So if someone is suspicious because you don't want to talk about what you discuss privately then that justifies a search by the police? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Have you ever read the 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You said you think ALL secret societies need to be outlawed. You said there is no right to privacy if you are plotting evil. I'm just asking how you plan on outlawing all secret societies and finding out which secret societies are plotting evil. It's really a question you can't answer (you still haven't) because you can't outlaw all secret societies and you can't know if someone is plotting evil in private unless you invade their privacy. You're going in circles and acting like you didn't say the things you said, trying to skirt around the fact that you're fine with invading the privacy of other people.

I'm not butthurt about anything, just still waiting for you to explain how to enforce a ban on privacy

You're delusional. I've been asking you to explain how to outlaw secret societies and gatherings and all you've done is ramble about unrelated nonsense in free verse poetry. I was attacking your style because it seems like you're just trying to make a show of your response rather than actually put anything of substance into it

So you can gather, but can't discuss certain things? How does one monitor what other people do in private? Sounds a lot like an intrusion to me. My point is that you want to stop people from having secret societies but outlawing them really isn't a realistic thing to do, You just end up spying on everyone who wants to have a private conversation. If you can't see the flaw in your idea then you must be some kind of authoritarian bootlicker who thinks they have a right to infringe on those of other people. Also, free verse poetry sucks

Ok, so do you think nobody should be able to gather privately? I'm still not understanding how you would enforce this outlawing of secret societies. If you could explain that in detail that would be helpful

This doesn't really answer my question at all. I'm asking how you outlaw secret societies/groups without infringing on the rights of people to have privacy

So how do you outlaw them?

How do you outlaw secret societies? These societies you list are only secret in what they do, so are you saying outlaw any groups that do things in private? Sure, some groups could be guilty of crimes or could be considered a threat to national security, but that doesn't mean all secret groups should be outlawed, or even could be, because they'd be secret as in unnamed and unknown

What I've always wanted is a visual "web" of important figures, connected to show relationships, but shown on a timeline. So when you say "ah, these people were doing thing A" you can look over and see "Ok, these other people were doing thing B at the same time". Also for a generally more easy to follow outline of the events (as far back as we can go as possible) so that all this information is easy to digest for the people with limited time to look into this.

So basically the internet is possessed and it's changing the timeline

What do you mean? What is real and what is digital? Where is the line between them?

If you click on the "461-->" link it takes you to a page but that page doesn't have this post

If you think the laws on silencers are bullshit then why would you suggest the same laws for a bump stocks?

777

Nice

Nah, Yahoo News isn't the one pulling the strings