I am so glad it wasn’t a malicious attack
as statedby our government.
Not thinking in words doesn't mean they aren't thinking. But it still raises the question of to what level their thought processes are different, and possibly insufficient to deduce things.
Though to be honest, there's no reason they couldn't just speak their thoughts out loud to themselves in private to think through ideas. Many of them don't do this either because the problem is much deeper than their mode of thought, I'd say.
One is too many.
McDonald's advertises heavily towards children. Stop making excuses for them and for sexual grooming.
when filled to the right volume the cup looks completely innocent and nostalgic.
And when filled to the wrong volume and positioned a certain way, the cup shows children a blow job.
Everything in society seems to be engineered to prevent self-sufficiency. They want us to depend on their system and be their slaves.
God is more powerful than electro smog.
So basically, you haven't personally been able to find an alternative meaning for the post, so none exists and anyone trying to decipher one is wasting their time or ignorant of the "90,000 other posts?
Yea, because I’m sure when military intelligence posts comms that are meant to hold a very specific meaning they take a good long look at marketing theory and aesthetics first…
It’s not Fox’s channel so they won’t get any views, the channel is Matt’s
Now that I think about it, you're right. Good was the first to change to a present vote AFTER Gaetz, so I was thinking that meant he was the one to give that final vote that put McCarthy over. Was forgetting to consider anyone who voted before Gaetz that might have changed.
Wasn't he listed as Republican Leader by the WEF? Which he has been even before becoming speaker.
Pretty sure it was Good.
Every L received gives us the information needed to claim the W next time :)
Billy Shears is not my love...
Oh wait, wrong person,
Maybe so it doesn't look like a Trump coup. Same reason he says shit like Biden will be president until 2024. Maybe it's true and that is the plan, but if not the reason would likely be to separate himself from what happens.
Same thing here. Make it look like it's not just a Trump plan to take the speaker position. Make it look like the Reps looked around for a viable candidate before eventually centering on Trump.
If the goal is to avoid a civil war, having Trump appear to overthrow the "rightful" government is not going to achieve that. If he looks like he stumbled back to the presidency through sheer dumb luck, a civil war may be avoidable.
Saw this proposed along with either being a landowner, or having served in the military. All 3 definitely seem like some good prerequisites (one of them, not all) to being able to vote. Definitely better than a government ran aptitude test or the like. Simple requirements that show you'll at least be more likely than not to inform yourself and try your best to pick the best guy, instead of the guy who says he'll give you more free shit.
Probably meant to convey an "I don't give a shit what you think about me" attitude.
Here's one more old example. King James Bible. No big deal though, only 400 years old...
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003572.html
Ignored all the points I made and answered none of my questions... nice!
And your argument is even better than what I thought. If I'm old, I'm some useless, brainwashed boomer. If I'm young, I'm some useless, brainwashed... something? Basically, if I disagree with you, I'm brainwashed. Very nice turtle shell you've built for yourself there. Makes it real easy to win arguments when you don't have to participate and can just deflect.
And don't pretend people don't understand the singular they. You can disagree with it all you want on principal, but it's deluded to claim no one understands it. Whether you like it or not, it has become an accepted singular pronoun that almost everybody understands. Even you knew what the guy was saying when you made your first comment.
So for the millionth time, if you hate it so much, propose an alternative singular pronoun for an unidentified person. What am I supposed to say when I want accuracy? Speech is meant to convey meaning as accurately as possible. If it doesn't currently and never has in this area, make it.
The fact of the matter, is that you're simply falling into an extreme reaction to an extreme situation. Feminist and tranny types try and commandeer the English language, and you react by throwing out anything they corrupt. This is useless and achieves nothing. Instead, don't let them or create a proper alternative, instead of stamping your feet and screaming from your little corner to a bunch of people who don't give a shit about your complaints unless you have solutions that fix the actual issue. That being an accurate way word to use in the context.
And that you don't care about accuracy is apparent. You'd rather make one assumption you don't mind, so you don't have to make a different supposed assumption that you dislike. Either way it's inaccurate and at that point I don't really care about what you think on the subject. Neither does anyone who uses the word for accuracy’s sake. If you actually want to convince anyone who uses the word in this way, you'll need to bring more to the table than tenuous accusations of people being feminist enablers and brainwashed. That might make you feel good about yourself, but it doesn't help or fix anything.
Also, here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
The article is cringe tranny shit after about the second paragraph, but it's complete with dates and an example of the use of the singular 'they' long before the feminist cringe you keep crying about. That isn't the only example. Its claims are rigid and easily refutable if you have actual evidence of your claim that it's a new aspect of language. I will admit I couldn't really find it in any old dictionaries, but the examples of the word being used this way go back to Shakespeare. I have a feeling he has a better grasp over the English language than both you and I combined.
(If you read nothing else I've written, read this) http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html
On the one hand, I'm not certain everyone should be able to vote without some kind of aptitude test. The supposed right was added later on to the constitution. On the other hand, if the government is the one overseeing the test they can just prevent people from voting against them by saying they're not smart enough and denying them.
At the very least, people need to stop being encouraged to vote if they're uninterested and uninformed. I'm sure a huge chunk of shitty votes come from the big "GET OUT AND VOTE VOTE VOTE OR YOU'RE ENABLING HITLER" push that happens around every election. A bunch of people who weren't going to vote because they don't know or don't care get pressured into voting "for the greater good of society!" when in reality they likely just fucked things up by voting for some moron promising shit that sounds nice but doesn't work.
When the media is so flagrantly biased against one side, how can someone who isn't informed on politics and gets pressured into voting be expected to do anything but vote D down the ballot? Or vote for "anyone but that dastardly Trump!"? Even if they vote R they're just as likely voting for some uni-party RINO than for an actual good option if they aren't informed and are only voting due to pressure.
This would probably work. Everyone can vote, but people aren't just blindly encouraged to if they don't know or care about politics.
I do think there's a chance the masses will wake up, but it's not because they sense something isn't right. They don't even begin to see it.
For all the people who say no one is waking up, and we've reached critical mass; we likely have. Of independent critical thinkers, that is. If all we have left asleep are sheep, all it takes is for them to follow a different shepherd, and the whole collective hive-mind will change their opinion seemingly overnight. Many people are simply followers. The schools made them like this, and some were like that already. They won't change their minds until they see the rest of the herd start to change direction. Once they sense the change in that sense, they will flip their views in a moment to stay in line with what they consider popular opinion.
Maybe they can be woken up in a true sense, but if they can't, the Q plan is likely to get them to stop following the black hat shepherd and to follow the white hat one, while also ensuring that good people continue to be the shepherds well into the future.
My feelings aren't hurt, I just prefer accuracy.
For fairness, I'll concede that assuming plurality at the very least CAN BE more of a big deal than assuming gender. However, assuming anything is a significant deal if accuracy is your concern, as it is mine. So the question remains: What word do I use if I want accuracy? I'll stop using 'they', as I agree it'd be nice to have something completely separate from the tranny and feminist nuts, the moment you present a valid alternative. Until then, I will continue to use the singular 'they', which virtually everyone understands the meaning of.
Also, I do sometimes make use of 'he' as an assumption when it seems more appropriate for the situation. Even if you insist on both 'he' and 'they' being assumptions, when striving for accuracy I hardly care which I use and generally prefer 'they'. Particularly considering it's never a problem in most cases and no one assumes you mean more than one person, so it's not like I'm trading clarity for accuracy. At that point, the clarity and accuracy are there for 99% of the people reading,
It's trivial to make up a singular pronoun. So again, if you don't like 'they', present an alternative. While I personally think most changes in language have been "devolution" in recent history, language can evolve and having a pronoun that is singular but nondescript is absolutely that.
P.S. I'm probably younger than you ;)
And I didn't go to a public indoctrination center for school or ever consider the MSM worth watching, so all your junk assumptions about my reasoning for word choice or anything else about me are very likely void of any sort of correctness. They only exist to appease your ego over not being able to accept a differing opinion on the subject. There's a reason I was a conservative by 18, and more and more of a hardliner from then on, and the reason certainly is NOT because I have an interest in appeasing a movement that is more focused on hating men (i.e. me) than on anything to do with women. If this one single thing I do appeases them, good for them, I give zero fucks. The other shit that I do that makes their brains implode on a recurring basis more than makes up for it.
Regardless, one thing our would-be overlords certainly do love, aside from feminists, is the divisive "muh boomer" rhetoric. They love when we focus on each other instead of on them. So good luck getting your new ship afloat when you're too busy sinking your ally's ships for not catering to your view of how things should be.
This is the fakest sounding meme shit I've eve read...
So the fact I fully believe it seems perfectly appropriate considering the state of our current clown world.
Was only 6 was I saw it last night.
KEK