Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

735

A very good article was written by the Conservative Treehouse recently. In case anyone missed it, it is a must read. Understanding this will help shut down the few Doomsday bane; a miasmatic blight on this Sub.

Read the article and see how the Deep State (treason within) was able to shut down Trump declassifying information.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/06/28/an-open-letter-to-governor-ron-desantis-the-december-1st-collusion-between-ag-bill-barr-and-the-ap-provides-a-stark-warning/

A very good article was written by the Conservative Treehouse recently. In case anyone missed it, it is a must read. Understanding this will help shut down the few Doomsday bane; a miasmatic blight on this Sub. Read the article and see how the Deep State (treason within) was able to shut down Trump declassifying information. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/06/28/an-open-letter-to-governor-ron-desantis-the-december-1st-collusion-between-ag-bill-barr-and-the-ap-provides-a-stark-warning/

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (85).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I'm using it the context of contradicting/denying to only contradict/deny. If you understood PsyOps tactics, it is one tactic in which makes a constructive polemic quickly becomes impossible.

Which is already clearly against the rules I wrote because I do have an understanding.

Thanks for your response though

Is that what you honestly mean? Every time you ask for my assistance there is always this implication that you think I'm somehow against this sub simply because I do not do things the exact way you would:

it was my mistaken belief that you had actually provided rules to live by. There are good people here that are keeping this Sub afloat. If it is your intention to allow bots and PsyOpers to destroy the charter of this Sub, state it now.

You see fit to contact me to handle problems and then make insinuations. I thought we were past this, but if you still feel some kind of suspicion we can have a private discussion and you can explicitly state any issue you have with me.

[–] • 0 pt

Please do not mix responses. The "Sub afloat" is a response to another message, which was a concern, albeit it is honestly a constant reminder when gainsaying to only gainsay becomes prevalent and spoils the entire conversation. My "gadfly" remark also is referencing to constant patronizing gainsaying. There are members here who try to bring scintillating research and news for education purposes. I really appreciate these people and the comments there add a synthesis of concepts to it; a melding of ideas, as it were. We are here for research purposes for the hope of walking away with a better understanding than what the MSM provides. It's almost as if we are connecting the dots per se. Again, gain-saying to only gainsay undermines all of this.

"Thanks for your response" is my response to your specific post saying you provided clarification to my concern. It is not in any way meant to be "insinuations". The "Thanks for your response" also signaled I am indeed "past this". Before you originally commented, I already was 'weighing' blocking this individual because I saw his responses were not sincere and it was not going anywhere.

So let's be clear. Let's move on to better fishing spots.

[–] • 1 pt

Please do not mix responses. The "Sub afloat" is a response to another message,

I'm aware the first the two quotes are from a later comment than the first.

Again, gain-saying to only gainsay undermines all of this.

Again, I'm aware. My point is this line in a previous comment was insinuation:

it was my mistaken belief that you had actually provided rules to live by.

Please, do not talk down to me. That is very disrespectful to do to someone whom you call upon for assistance.

[–] • 0 pt

Don't be shitty to Jello-Bro.