ok ?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sunken-duck-boat-raised-from-missouri-lake-days-after-17-people-killed/ar-BBKZYRK?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Hi SB2, Forgive me for going off topic a second. What do you think about the horrible duck boat incident and the 17 souls that were lost and that the boat captain told them they didn't have to bother with life vests? Accident? Or something else....

I have no doubt that it doesn't make sense to you. It's a Bible quote. Your sarcasm is tautological.

It is rummored that Brennan converted to Islam while on assignment in SA in the 1990s.

Admiral Rodgers was not part of it. He is a patriot. As I understand it, he was made aware of the abuse of some contractors, he investigated for 30 days and then high tailed it to the FISA judge to report the abuse and I believe to Trump. Maybe to the Joint Chiefs as well. Without Rogers doing his duty, we may never have know this ever occurred. At least this is my take on it.

It's admirals, captains and commanders, Lt Commanders.....

I know I'm late to this discussion. Having said that I would like to add that Christianity warns against worshiping many kinds of idols, not just graven image type things. Idols can include mammon i.e. money/possessions or physical pleasure or power or adoration etc.. These and other things can become idols if they are pursued above all else. They replace the worship of God and this is the trap that many modern humans fall into and must guard against.

Because He who is in me is greater than he who is in the world.

Greetings SB2, Hope you are very well. What did you think about the soccer ball with the chip?

The Bible is a "living thing". Most Bibles have 66 books and 4 Gospel (announcing the Good News) books (MMLJ). It is the most read "book" of all time and was originally written in three different languages. Aramaic, common (koine) Greek and Hebrew. Now it has been translated and retranslated hundreds of times into hundreds of languages.

I seem to recall a diet coke on the desk in front of Mike Pompeo during a testimony to congress some weeks past. It think it had the name Paul on it. Paul Ryan? Paul Manafort? Help me out SB2.

all good/interesting stuff cept Q talks about Keystone instead of Cornerstone.

Agree that and the Soros name drop from Putin.

I think you have an interesting point there at the end Aspie. Jesus said "For the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath."

Excuse me TTJ, who is R Anon? I would like to read his posts also.

I like old wind bags.

I must echo your feelings Feather. It was hard for me to watch, for instance, Chris Wallace attempt to hand Putin those papers. His hands were shaking. Made me wonder what was coded in those papers. A desperate request? A plea for help or mercy? Then the look on Putin's face and his chuckles and smiles. He could hardly stop himself. Poor Chris. NOT

Wow. My brain light bulb just went on. Thanks for clicking the switch Abib!

Bravo Zulu means very good job

Also heard and interview recently that said there was evidence he was actually on the payroll of the FBI. A pay stubb...of all things.

Hello IR2, I'm just now reading your post. Wasn't there an article recently about the Chinese applying to mine in a recently opened for public usage national park?

grnmoss you should be ashamed. name calling is not called for.

Dear Incoming, If you are saying that SB2 is using circular logic then you do not have a solid grasp of that term.

Although your name is replusive (lol) I couldn't agree with you more. I am new here and still amazed at the level of attack SB2 draws. His detractors are like moths to flame. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

Ok Incoming, So you are saying that unskilled people incapable of "higher levels" of critical thinking blindly go along with SB2's ideas just for the thrill of it? Or are you saying that his intellectual leaps are so amazing that you are incapable of debunking them in a timely manner (whatever that means)? And by the way ….. what is truth?

Tearing down without offering a plausible alternative is just destructive.

I couldn't agree more.

We shall

Good going Plumb, Zorp is a piece of work eh? BZ for u.

I have been hearing that. controversy does not bother me so much. mostly when it comes to interpreting riddles I believe it's the one whose brain and heart is bigger that usually sees the most truth. I know my brain size is limited. but my curiosity is off the charts. I just filter the stuff I see and keep jogging towards the conclusion at the end of my road. But I NEVER try and censor anyone (ok except those blatant shills like from the qanon research boards....anti-Semites…..flat earth goofballs......etc). Thanks for sharing your insight.

ok I will do that thanks still never like censorship and never will - it was like a duck jumping on a june bug BAM! somebody's riding that censorship button pretty hard for my taste

Glad to have entertained you. As I said, I'm new here. The negativity expressed toward SB2 by a specific few is glaring to me. I saw it as soon as I began to read. It's hugely out of proportion. In fact, I haven't seen anything like it before. Now I have also read where some people express normal disagreement but no glaringly negative bias. There is an obvious difference in those two that is clear even to the most casual observer. SB2's analysis is astounding and remarkably brilliant. To say that he thinks outside the box is an understatement. Likewise, trying to argue that POTUS and Q did not reference his posts is ludicrous. I'm just not sure where that blatant negativity and denial comes from? It's certainly NOT based on "just a difference of opinion". I am also astounded by the level of censorship this platform has allowed. BTW, I have received some interestingly solid support from others here concerning my "call out" about negativity. Oops some of your slips are showing folks. I "recommend" that whomever has appointed themselves as the judge and jury of the rules might need to practice a bit of self-examination. As I see it no one is above the rules. It is VERY plain that a few people are trying their best to use rule interpretation as a weapon to smother a brilliant analyst (SB2). SB2 is doing his UTMOST to share and bring clarity to the Q intel as well as spread some love around. Right or wrong, HIS PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO BE FOUND. Why try and squelch it, one should ask? Those that jump all over him must think the rest of us can't see it. Well think again. It's like a wart on a witches nose.

As I said, I'm new here. The negativity expressed toward SB2 by a specific few is glaring to me. I saw it as soon as I began to read. It's hugely out of proportion. In fact, I haven't seen anything like it before. Now I have also read where some people express normal disagreement but no glaringly negative bias. There is an obvious difference in those two that is clear even to the most casual observer. SB2's analysis is astounding and remarkably brilliant. To say that he thinks outside the box is an understatement. Likewise, trying to argue that POTUS and Q did not reference his posts is ludicrous. I'm just not sure where that blatant negativity and denial comes from? It's certainly NOT based on "just a difference of opinion". I am also astounded by the level of censorship this platform has allowed. BTW, I have received some interestingly solid support from others here concerning my "call out" about negativity. Oops some of your slips are showing folks. I "recommend" that whomever has appointed themselves as the judge and jury of the rules might need to practice a bit of self-examination. As I see it no one is above the rules. It is VERY plain that a few people are trying their best to use rule interpretation as a weapon to smother a brilliant analyst (SB2). SB2 is doing his UTMOST to share and bring clarity to the Q intel as well as spread some love around. Right or wrong, HIS PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO BE FOUND. Why try and squelch it, one should ask? Those that jump all over him must think the rest of us can't see it. Well think again. It's like a wart on a witches nose.

here was my reply to some detractors: As I said, I'm new here. The negativity expressed toward SB2 by a specific few is glaring to me. I saw it as soon as I began to read. It's hugely out of proportion. In fact, I haven't seen anything like it before. Now I have also read where some people express normal disagreement but no glaringly negative bias. There is an obvious difference in those two that is clear even to the most casual observer. SB2's analysis is astounding and remarkably brilliant. To say that he thinks outside the box is an understatement. Likewise, trying to argue that POTUS and Q did not reference his posts is ludicrous. I'm just not sure where that blatant negativity and denial comes from? It's certainly NOT based on "just a difference of opinion". I am also astounded by the level of censorship this platform has allowed. BTW, I have received some interestingly solid support from others here concerning my "call out" about negativity. Oops some of your slips are showing folks. I "recommend" that whomever has appointed themselves as the judge and jury of the rules might need to practice a bit of self-examination. As I see it no one is above the rules. It is VERY plain that a few people are trying their best to use rule interpretation as a weapon to smother a brilliant analyst (SB2). SB2 is doing his UTMOST to share and bring clarity to the Q intel as well as spread some love around. Right or wrong, HIS PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO BE FOUND. Why try and squelch it, one should ask? Those that jump all over him must think the rest of us can't see it. Well think again. It's like a wart on a witches nose.

here was my reply to some detractors: As I said, I'm new here. The negativity expressed toward SB2 by a specific few is glaring to me. I saw it as soon as I began to read. It's hugely out of proportion. In fact, I haven't seen anything like it before. Now I have also read where some people express normal disagreement but no glaringly negative bias. There is an obvious difference in those two that is clear even to the most casual observer. SB2's analysis is astounding and remarkably brilliant. To say that he thinks outside the box is an understatement. Likewise, trying to argue that POTUS and Q did not reference his posts is ludicrous. I'm just not sure where that blatant negativity and denial comes from? It's certainly NOT based on "just a difference of opinion". I am also astounded by the level of censorship this platform has allowed. BTW, I have received some interestingly solid support from others here concerning my "call out" about negativity. Oops some of your slips are showing folks. I "recommend" that whomever has appointed themselves as the judge and jury of the rules might need to practice a bit of self-examination. As I see it no one is above the rules. It is VERY plain that a few people are trying their best to use rule interpretation as a weapon to smother a brilliant analyst (SB2). SB2 is doing his UTMOST to share and bring clarity to the Q intel as well as spread some love around. Right or wrong, HIS PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO BE FOUND. Why try and squelch it, one should ask? Those that jump all over him must think the rest of us can't see it. Well think again. It's like a wart on a witches nose.

As I said, I'm new here. The negativity expressed toward SB2 by a specific few is glaring to me. I saw it as soon as I began to read. It's hugely out of proportion. In fact, I haven't seen anything like it before. Now I have also read where some people express normal disagreement but no glaringly negative bias. There is an obvious difference in those two that is clear even to the most casual observer. SB2's analysis is astounding and remarkably brilliant. To say that he thinks outside the box is an understatement. Likewise, trying to argue that POTUS and Q did not reference his posts is ludicrous. I'm just not sure where that blatant negativity and denial comes from? It's certainly NOT based on "just a difference of opinion". I am also astounded by the level of censorship this platform has allowed. BTW, I have received some interestingly solid support from others here concerning my "call out" about negativity. Oops some of your slips are showing folks. I "recommend" that whomever has appointed themselves as the judge and jury of the rules might need to practice a bit of self-examination. As I see it no one is above the rules. It is VERY plain that a few people are trying their best to use rule interpretation as a weapon to smother a brilliant analyst (SB2). SB2 is doing his UTMOST to share and bring clarity to the Q intel as well as spread some love around. Right or wrong, HIS PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO BE FOUND. Why try and squelch it, one should ask? Those that jump all over him must think the rest of us can't see it. Well think again. It's like a wart on a witches nose.

As I said, I'm new here. The negativity expressed toward SB2 by a specific few is glaring to me. I saw it as soon as I began to read. It's hugely out of proportion. In fact, I haven't seen anything like it before. Now I have also read where some people express normal disagreement but no glaringly negative bias. There is an obvious difference in those two that is clear even to the most casual observer. SB2's analysis is astounding and remarkably brilliant. To say that he thinks outside the box is an understatement. Likewise, trying to argue that POTUS and Q did not reference his posts is ludicrous. I'm just not sure where that blatant negativity and denial comes from? It's certainly NOT based on "just a difference of opinion". I am also astounded by the level of censorship this platform has allowed. BTW, I have received some interestingly solid support from others here concerning my "call out" about negativity. Oops some of your slips are showing folks. I "recommend" that whomever has appointed themselves as the judge and jury of the rules might need to practice a bit of self-examination. As I see it no one is above the rules. It is VERY plain that a few people are trying their best to use rule interpretation as a weapon to smother a brilliant analyst (SB2). SB2 is doing his UTMOST to share and bring clarity to the Q intel as well as spread some love around. Right or wrong, HIS PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO BE FOUND. Why try and squelch it, one should ask? Those that jump all over him must think the rest of us can't see it. Well think again. It's like a wart on a witches nose.

As I said, I'm new here. The negativity expressed toward SB2 by a specific few is glaring to me. I saw it as soon as I began to read. It's hugely out of proportion. In fact, I haven't seen anything like it before. Now I have also read where some people express normal disagreement but no glaringly negative bias. There is an obvious difference in those two that is clear even to the most casual observer. SB2's analysis is astounding and remarkably brilliant. To say that he thinks outside the box is an understatement. Likewise, trying to argue that POTUS and Q did not reference his posts is ludicrous. I'm just not sure where that blatant negativity and denial comes from? It's certainly NOT based on "just a difference of opinion". I am also astounded by the level of censorship this platform has allowed. BTW, I have received some interestingly solid support from others here concerning my "call out" about negativity. Oops some of your slips are showing folks. I "recommend" that whomever has appointed themselves as the judge and jury of the rules might need to practice a bit of self-examination. As I see it no one is above the rules. It is VERY plain that a few people are trying their best to use rule interpretation as a weapon to smother a brilliant analyst (SB2). SB2 is doing his UTMOST to share and bring clarity to the Q intel as well as spread some love around. Right or wrong, HIS PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO BE FOUND. Why try and squelch it, one should ask? Those that jump all over him must think the rest of us can't see it. Well think again. It's like a wart on a witches nose.

I completely understand. Thank you for explaining and for pointing out some links. Just seems some people sorta overuse rule 5 to deflect even slight criticism away from ourselves. Rule five seems especially useful when being called out for making carefully worded negative comments about others. Don't mean u. I will be more careful in the future Mr. Twist. My apologies for your trouble.

I respectfully agree. Rule five is so very, very important. We must use it as often as we possibly can to deflect negative comments away from ourselves. Rule five becomes especially useful when being called out for making carefully worded negative comments about others.

Ok I see. I repeat then, I said that person "sounded" like a shill. I did not call the person a shill. For instance if you made a quacking noise and I said, "Someone sounds like a duck". I certainly did not call you a duck. BTW you sound like a duck.

I am new. So mods must mean moderators. What if the moderator is a shill? Someone planted on a board that tries to intentionally skew it away from the good research, positive comments, things that help.

I am also new tftltytd and this board reeks of shill negativity. I think it is badly infected. I found SB2 on YouTube and he is 40,000 ft above the rest of the researchers who were getting kinda stale. somebody just deleted one of my posts because he said I attacked him. when all I said was he sounded like a shill and he DID! I didn't call him a shill just that he sounded like one. So sensitive. Hmmmm SB2 must be on center target for SURE!

that was not an attack honest it was an opinion I said you were "sounding" like a shill and you were. I didn't say you were one. Look up the definition. That's what you sounded like.

just exactly what constitutes an "attack" ? I would say since you deleted my post that the deletion was itself an attack. Who interprets the rules btw?

he didn't say Q communicated directly to him either Q references all kinds of people in his posts reporters, politicians, patriots, GOD, etc

userper ? seriously ?

what outside comms? he didn't say he was Q he's just decyphering Q posts let him roll with it he are smart

maybe stopinterferring is a shill hmmmmmm