2
Leiloni 2 points ago +2 / -0

If they got mad and name call then a sliver of their mind believes it and you've gotten to them. It's just cognitive dissonance. It's a start and who knows, maybe they'll start reading more on their own and one day that conversation will go differently. You planted the seed.

1
Leiloni 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't think they can actually fire someone for refusing a vaccine. I believe they need to offer reasonable alternatives to allow people to continue to work. It's illegal to force people to take vaccines. I know healthcare workers myself who haven't taken the vaccine and are still working so this seems like a policy her employer has decided to take on.

3
Leiloni 3 points ago +3 / -0

All you have to do is say "No, thanks". You cannot be forced to take a vaccine. No need for any extra words and chances are, you'll never even be in a position where you'll have to even say "No". Usually they're offered to those who want them and that's it.

1
Leiloni 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't think AOC is part of the swamp. I think she has some insane political beliefs, but I think she's still just a normal person who ran for office. This is not the first time she's had a tweet like this.

1
Leiloni 1 point ago +1 / -0

She looked different and womanly when she was younger which I find very strange. How does a person change so drastically.

1
Leiloni 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m not sure they can actually make it required, at least in the US. They need to give you reasonable alternatives to continue working. Hell, even healthcare workers aren’t required to get it.

1
Leiloni 1 point ago +1 / -0

Mine is as well but this looks like it was just a Verizon thing and I don't know about the two of you, but I'm on Xfinity.

1
Leiloni 1 point ago +1 / -0

Philadelphian here - almost all of Philly uses Comcast and service has been fine all day. I know there was a Verizon cell and internet outage along the top half of the East Coast (or possibly still is) but we don't have much of that in the city - more so in the burbs. I haven't personally experienced any other outages today.

1
Leiloni 1 point ago +1 / -0

As far as I know the outage was only Verizon Fios customers. I haven't had issues with Google or anything else for that matter. I believe Verizon said it was East Coast from VA to MA due to a fiber cable cut in NY. Suspicious for sure but I'm not aware of any other outages?

3
Leiloni 3 points ago +4 / -1

I'm not sure I believe that given it's just a strategically bad location. You're surrounded by water on 3 sides and are prone to major tropical storms forcing evacuation.

5
Leiloni 5 points ago +6 / -1

I'm not sure I believe that given it's just a strategically bad location. You're surrounded by water on 3 sides and are prone to major tropical storms forcing evacuation.

3
Leiloni 3 points ago +3 / -0

Over on T-D/Patriots.win they have that entire text exchange at the top of this picture posted. Worth a read - https://media.patriots.win/post/Do9zyJgb.png

2
Leiloni 2 points ago +2 / -0

You're not the military. They deal with a different set of problems and a different set of rules. It's right there in their own manual. I didn't make up the rules, they did.

7
Leiloni 7 points ago +7 / -0

It does. Biden being President fulfills the definition of a hostile power occupying our territory. Going further into 11.2 it says:

11.2.2.1 “Actually Placed” – Effectiveness of Occupation. Military occupation must be actual and effective; that is, the organized resistance must have been overcome, and the Occupying Power must have taken measures to establish its authority.

They (China Joe) established their authority today via the inauguration. Now that the definitions of 11.2 have been fulfilled, the military can begin taking action towards 11.3.

1
Leiloni 1 point ago +2 / -1

We don't know who they've detained yet. Q said the public won't be notified until 11.3 when the military is in full control. 11.2 outlines the definition for an occupied territory, which occurred upon China Joe taking office. Now the military can get to work (according to military law) and we'll find out when it's all over.

1
Leiloni 1 point ago +1 / -0

This post makes some good points to start off with - https://greatawakening.win/p/11SJjlBUT0/at-first-i-was-disappointed-in-t/c/

And I replied with the below - I think not Trump but the military has the power now. Military law dictates they can and are obligated to act. All of the actions taken up until now by Trump and team have laid the groundwork for the below to actually work (and 11.3, 11.4, 11.6, etc. mentioned in Q posts). But also remember Q said we will not be notified until after 11.3 - that is, once the military is under full control and everything is over, only then do we the public find out.

I think if I'm understanding this correctly, the military can't step in and do anything until the Occupying Power (China Joe) is legally occupying the territory under military law. A lot of stuff in 11.2 (page 744-755 - type 771 in the PDF search at the top) talks about the definition of an occupied territory and the definition of that and when a military can then take it back.

11.2.2 Standard for Determining When Territory Is Considered Occupied. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile forces.

This standard for when the law of belligerent occupation applies is reflected in Article 42 of the Hague IV Regulations and is regarded as customary international law.

11.2.2.1 “Actually Placed” – Effectiveness of Occupation. Military occupation must be actual and effective; that is, the organized resistance must have been overcome, and the Occupying Power must have taken measures to establish its authority.

That last part I think was the inauguration today. I don't know how we missed this, but reading it now it seems very obvious. Remember Q has repeatedly said the military is the only way. Trump, SCOTUS, Congress - none of them matter. They are not the way.

1
Leiloni 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't think so. I think if I'm understanding this correctly, the military can't step in and do anything until the Occupying Power (China Joe) is legally occupying the territory under military law. A lot of stuff in 11.2 (page 744-755 - type 771 in the PDF search at the top) talks about the definition of an occupied territory and the definition of that and when a military can then take it back.

11.2.2 Standard for Determining When Territory Is Considered Occupied. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile forces.

This standard for when the law of belligerent occupation applies is reflected in Article 42 of the Hague IV Regulations and is regarded as customary international law.

11.2.2.1 “Actually Placed” – Effectiveness of Occupation. Military occupation must be actual and effective; that is, the organized resistance must have been overcome, and the Occupying Power must have taken measures to establish its authority.

That last part I think was the inauguration today. I don't know how we missed this, but reading it now it seems very obvious.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›