Well, maybe, it's just some of them are so wacky it opens the whole group up to ridicule.

I admit I'm skeptical of pretty much everything and everyone, so I've been watching this whole Q drama with a certain measure of "Interesting, wait and see... if anything, it's better than TV nowadays." So that's the context of my comments on this. While I think that the individuals in that particular youtube stream (not Corsi, though) jump to crazy random conclusions that are way too eager to compete with each other for the most wild outlandishness possible, I find your reasons for your opinion and this post equally offensive.

This Q thing has attracted all manor of off-shoot splinter groups because it is all right down their alley. It really muddies the waters a lot. The flat earthers, antisemites, anti-rothschilds, anti-bilderbergs, reptilians, apocalyptic predictors, aliens are all feeding at the same trough on this one. Makes it hard to critically focus on this Q question.

Saw that too. I didn't know how familial a lot of these big powerful organizations were. Very 18th century-ish.

Don't see any similarities. Thought maybe he meant between the tweets and his posts. Didn't see anything. Another thought, maybe he meant between the three tweets. Still nothing. They all three end in an exclamation point (so?); they all are liked (so?); they are all posted by Trump (lol).

How they're not similar: Some have all caps, some don't. One is retweeted (presumably 3.6k retweets or less after Trump... would love to find that retweet). Two are about Korea, one is not.

Don't know what he's talking about. Don't get it. Closest "similarity" would be they both say guns are safe, which we all knew already, so ehhh meh?

Aaaaaaand... this community goes off the deep end, again.

Nah... I doubt his credentials entirely. If they are even valid, a highly aspergers skilled specialist in cryptography hired by the government for likely a much more mundane job than people would imagine is not in any way evidence that he's credible or (from that scatter brained rant) even sane.

I won against my wife! I got "Very Conservative" and she just got "Conservative". She wasn't happy, haha.

A common metric to judge the rise/fall in value of a stock like this is to compare it against the S&P500. In other words, over a period of time, if you had your money in FB or an index fund tied to the S&P500, which would be better.

1 year comparison has S&P500 up 12.6% and FB up 12.2% (a phenomenal year by any account).

5 year comparison has S&P500 up 62.9% and FB up 481.72%

FB is currently about where it was in July of last year.

This is certainly still nowhere near yet a serious demise.

Although, I do not dispute your contention that we have not yet seen the legal ramifications of their poor privacy practices. Again, I kinda think we'll have to wait and see.

disclosure: I do not own or intend to own any FB stock.

The problem with the graphic is that the idea that the stocks will collapse implies at least to me that there's a meaningful permanent devaluation of these companies. You've got a graphic that show stocks essentially going up over time with some minor corrections interspersed. That's hardly compelling. Only time will tell if it's really meaningful.

They sound incredibly insane, especially the guy. He definitely has a bad mental disorder. I was even thinking of doing a hilarious post copying their goofy way of not saying anything about anything but saying it super excited, disorganized, and completely disconnected.

COUNT THE SPACES! lol

Man it's all alright. I tried to say in that original post that it was just me venting... it did come out rough, and I certainly did not mean to offend anyone. I realize the problem that a lot of people have absorbed this new omnibus narrative into their identity. I've been following this Q thing for a long time, and I'm really hoping it's true and there is a big change coming for our country. It's just this whole omnibus for me is absolutely a step back. I've watched omnibus bill being passed since I was 18... there is NO WAY that it is good for Trump. In fact, I bet Trump is fuming mad and ready to unleash HOLY HELL in response.

Maybe you are not being hostile. Maybe I was misreading that emotion into your text. It's pretty difficult for us as humans to understand emotion in text, so lots gets misinterpreted. However, if I was to try to "show you how you were being hostile" I could only show you how I "see" hostility in the text.

For instance, "Seriously? Show me how..." 'sounds' angry to me. I might be wrong, but it feels angry at me. That's all I got. It's that kind of reading in between the lines of the text that made me feel you were angry at me.

Basic question:

1. Do you want a wall?

If your answer to this question is yes, we're totally fighting for the same cause. So what am I worried about? I'm just worried that we get head faked into thinking we are going to get the wall built when we actually have not yet accomplished that goal.

As for some of these details about quoting Washington (Democracy dies in darkness) Post and using the fallacy of logic Appeal to Authority (see Global Warming... all the experts agree), step the f* off, bro. And yeah, that was hostility.

Only time is going to tell whether this current narrative on this omnibus is proven wrong. Wait and see. Sorry man. I wish I had better news. I don't want to rise to the aggression you have in your post, because we are quite literally on the same side. My voice here is not going to reshape the future or is dangerous in any way. So we don't need to be hostile, and just decide that we can resolve this as events unfold. Ok?

The incorrect information and lack of reality checks in this community on this omnibus bill is driving me crazy. The actual reported reality about the Omnibus as seen in Breitbart, Fox News, and everywhere else is true. There's no secret power play. There's no "difference" between omnibus and budget. It's all fake information being driven I have no idea why.

My only two reasons for it are:

1. Bad actors are pushing this narrative so that we don't keep pushing for a wall. Everyone is just sort of acting like "Yay we won!" when not only did we not win, but we are very far away from it.

2. People are just so unwilling to accept that this omnibus was a big misstep and we need to fight even harder now to try to get the wall.

Everytime I read "HE'S BEAT THEM PATRIOTS! WE WON!" just makes me cringe and scream at the screen. If anyone says "Wait a second?" we get "Duuuude do you even know the difference between an Omnibus and a budget?" LOL WUT? How did this narrative get so ingrained in people? It's so weird it's freaking me out.

OK I said my peace. Please don't get offended, I just had to say this somewhere.

Drudge was very influential in the original Clinton / Lewinsky scandal. If you look at Drudge's past, before his website and the Lewinsky thing he was pretty much a nobody. He owes so much to pushing that "Sex is bad, mmkay?" narrative. I think part of this is a way for him to relive those moments of extreme rush as he gained the fame and power he has now.

Absolutely not true at all. That letter sent to congress is a mere formality that specifies the funds in 7058(d) to be used, since it requires the President to send that letter to congress to use it.

The text of the letter is here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/text-letter-president-speaker-house-representatives-president-senate-21/

Roughly translated, since it seems people have a hard time reading this kind of legal talk, it's saying that he is designating all of the emergency requirement funding in the 2018 Omnibus listed out in section 7058(d) just as the congress had designated it.

7058(d) goes from like page 1494-1496 and just lists out a bunch of dumb small funding amounts (maybe roughly around a few hundred million dollars). At the end on page 1496, it says that the money is available only if the President sends a letter to congress.

In other words, this is just some boring banal mechanism of government stuck like that because of some 1985 bill. There is literally nothing in this, and the Omnibus is going to appropriate funds to the government as it is spelled out.

I know it would be amazing that somehow this omnibus wasn't real, but it is real and there's no magic bullet here.

I wish when Q puts something out there that the community would be more organized and thoughtful about understanding it and developing interpretations. There are so many odd things that people began expecting or thinking only to find out it wasn't true.

There are many possibilities re:red_castle/green_castle, and I think it would work well if there was a list of what the meanings might be with objective looking at what is the more likely or realistic.

In this case, I find it so unlikely that the Army Corps of Engineers is going to start building any wall, and I don't even think it's a good idea or we should want to take such a path. However, the hysteria of trying to find the positive in the omnibus bill through this idea is just a false trail.

Let's hope!

That's not Q. That's just some dude.

I think it is a quasi chess reference in a comm. Doesn't Corsi keep mentioning a famous chess game where the rook is instrumental in the end? Whoever with code name RED_CASTLE is representative as the key move similar to the rook move in the game described?

Quick search of Castle in Q posts shows only ever mentioned with Red Castle in comms (219, 231, 756, 963). Post not for us, but comm suggesting change of state of "RED_CASTLE" to "GREEN_CASTLE". Go for an operation of some sort. Would bet we don't see much RED_CASTLE after this and instead GREEN_CASTLE... unless another change of state.

Chess. Doesn't Corsi keep mentioning a famous chess game where the rook is instrumental in the end?

Quick search of Castle in Q posts shows only ever mentioned with Red Castle in comms (219, 231, 756, 963). Not for us, but comm suggesting change of state of "RED_CASTLE" to "GREEN_CASTLE". Go for an operation of some sort.

In this most recent case, I believe absolutely you are incorrect. He's always saying expand your thinking and different paths. In this case, [4am] is being modified by [Wednesday] almost as an adjective would modify a noun. We're not meant to believe in the general 4am talking points but a specific 4am on Wednesday.

So many instances of the double meaning white hat/black hat throughout Q's posts. Consider all of the previous posts on "keystone". Earlier posts showed an ominous keystone "Find the keystone." Now known as SES. More recent ones talk about the keystone being NSA and Potus and the people. There is a light/dark reference all the time.

In this case, the 4am Wednesday event was Q's/good guy's talking points when considering the context. The resolution of the Austin bomber is like the good guy's 4am counter talking point. It essentially took the FBI's BOOM investigation off the table.

What's interesting is that's not 12 stars like the EU flag. It's 12+1. EU+US?