x_x, suptis replied to just about every point you presented. You just reply with 'do you know sovereign citizen means?' I'm leaning towards you being more a troll than a theorist. Btw most of your op is just copied and pasted drivel. It seems like you, your opinions and your ideology are shaped by papers from others. Essentially, unable to think for oneself. I think that's depressing. I think you need a lesson in critical thinking instead of blindly following papers made by others. A sane person would look towards more types of information other than theories, as well as question the source.
Yes it's exactly copied and pasted, I know no one will read it if it wasn't, thread would be locked if it's just a link to the document lol FYI he asked me if I'm part of some group from the 50's and I'm asking if he could explain what do those words mean to him which he conveniently skipped right over because it's an oxymoron Lol And if you think it's drivel I'm sure Harvard would like to debate you on that topic There is probably 50 books and movies about this document, not sure why it's so important to you to try and attack me for it lol Suptis2 asked me for help, what that has to do with you I don't know, he has questions and I answered, then he confirmed He's doing his research you can tell he's growing
Is any of the op not copied and pasted from the document? Do you have any original thoughts on the matter? Or is everything within the article a basis for your opinion? Such closed thinking, I bet you regularly communicate within another forum where they continue and perpetuate this blind insanity. FYI he didn't just ask if you were in the 50's. You can't just ignore what he says cause you disagree with it, similar to how you ignored my post. No rebuttal to anything. You consider yourself a smart and learned person, with critical thinking and analysis. Aside from the fact you can't argue your point without claiming ignorance. Reply to us properly in the future instead of pushing the blame to a point that isn't really relevant.
Initially suptis2 did ask for help but then he posted again disagreeing with several points and you just replied with 'Do you know what sovereign citizen means?' That is not how you reply when trying to make a thread pushing your 'ideology'. Ignoring when someone disagrees Or maybe it is, who knows.
Who says I'm pushing an ideology in just sharing the document for discussion I don't have to disagree, when I agree what's the point in rebutting again, he only saying the same thing I just said How about you log on suptis2 and come back Everything is a battle with you people, just relax and read the document, come to your own conclusion, have your own opinion Why you trying to fight for suptis2 when there is no controversy lol
I would typically say ideology is too much. But you often post conspiracy threads, so Ideology in this sense actually fits. Rip Edit 2:How about you stop editing your posts after I reply? That is an interesting claim. Untrue ofc. Very defensive when given an opposing view, interesting. More defensive-ness But yeah, I've skimmed through the op and I agree with some of it. But most of it is silly. My opinion is Politics is rigged, politicians are figureheads that can easily be controlled by others. Not that it matters since you wont address this opinion. I'm not fighting for suptis2. It's the sake of the matter, ignoring someone annoys me especially when their point is substantial. In simpler terms, Suptis2 said smart stuff, you brushed off the intelligence like it meant nothing. That annoys me. Hence why I am voicing my opinion on the matter. Hence why I am here, understood? Excellent.
I'm just posting the public record, look at all my threads and read them all, they're all based on something in the record search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=X_x&fid%5B%5D=5&sc=1&sf=titleonly&sr=topics&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search
Honestly, if I wanted to read blatent copy and pastes I'd read mainstream media stories that reiterate the same popular nonsense. Kardashian mugged Kardashian was robbed at gunpoint A wild night for a Kardashian pass
? Its nearing the end of the semester. I need to get my projects/papers/tests done and in order. I don't know about you, but i find straight A's kinda difficult. For reference, My only accounts are Suptis'. And Why do yall always think Imma dood. Im not gonna show my nips to appease the "no catfish zone" I'll show my ankles if your into that. Oi. Even if i nipped out id still be called a dude. Anyways. Thank you Kas and Todd for having Logic and being able to Comprehend Look forward to countering any future conspiracy theories you have. Dont forget, you don't have to translate your arguement to english. You can keep it in x_x form!
Oh you're trying to counter them? Lol good luck and you're well behind already and I got 4 more already made great to be posted You got lot of catching up to do, so these guys doing is derailing and raging out name calling Not one person is trying to rebut anything, if you feel up to the task start bumping my old threads trying to disprove congress I'm just sharing information do what you want, you're not convincing me facts and evidence don't exist
I feel as though you are delusional. Either that or you are narcissitic. Alot of your arguements seem of or pertain to delusions. But back to the point What's this you say? Of course they are arrested. They are not under arrest at the time, being interviewed as a witness. If an individual pleads the 5th, the officer has either reasonable suspicion (effectively allowing a noncustodial detention) or depending on the circumstance, probable cause to suspect the individuals involvement in the crime. Why Plead the 5th if you are innocent. May i add that probable cause is sufficient to arrest, and a warrant is not necessarily needed on scene. Similarly an individual does not need to be mirandized, as long as no questions pertaining to the crime are asked while in custody. You get Mirandized on arraignment anyways. Torture is an illegal means to obtain information, and has been since the late 1930s. Our Exclusionary rule handles that issue now. Not to mention torture would result in immediate removal from the force, and result in lawsuits Seems like he had no plea ~ Nolo contendere. And corporations are not provided the same "rights" as individuals. Appellate courts don't argue the facts in question, only whether or not the case adhered to the established court rules/laws & court proceedings. I'd assume It's a fact that he plead no contest. They can't argue that issue. Your argument as a whole could make sense if it were not circumstantial. Each part of your claim relies on previous or future evidence to be justifiable. However, on its own, no individual part stands. ------------------------- I am curious. Is another language your first language or... i am polilingual, so i wouldn't mind. The end