- Messages
- 29,670
- Reaction score
- 5,173
- Points
- 288

We don't need more federal intervention in U.S. cities
The use of government force to achieve political advantage is dangerous and sets a bad precedent.

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
Apparently, it was not a ham sandwich. Everyone knows a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.Prosecutors Fail to Secure Indictment Against Man Who Threw Sandwich at Federal Agent
Yeah, but Tucker also mentioned that 'Q predictions' have come true... He's right and they glossed right over it. Perhaps they didn't want the blowback from the deniers??And it was curious how they both made efforts to ridicule Qanon, which afaik is a collective of people attempting to decipher the Q drops and probably deserves to be ridiculed, whereas the actual Q drops were and still remain, enigmatic .
Collum has a way of saying it, that makes a lot of sense.yeah, but Tucker also mentioned that 'Q predictions' have come true... He's right and they glossed right over it. Perhaps they didn't want the blowback from the deniers??
I think they could be correct in that Q was disenchanted spooks who wanted to change the government. Iffn you followed Q as much as I have you come to the realization that Trump is/was Q+. There are too many 'coincidences' for it to be happenstance and that was the point of those 'coincidences' - to give a believability to the Q. Q was/is a military psyop designed to waken the sleeping population. If you look back at 2015 and today and see how things have changed since then and the efforts made by the deep state to "keep a lid on it" using every trick in the book you notice a shift in national mentality. All the law-fare crap they attempted on Trump to the point of assassination... and they still failed??
Thank all gods for body cameras; and the police agencies/unions who make them available. I guess I should feel some gratitude for the Toob of Ewe - although I'm sure they thought the bodycam vids would catch those evil po-po dead to rights.Few people realize how bad things are out there and the cops have been hounded by these Liberal whack jobs to the point where the good ones just want to find soft inside spots. These are the veterans that are needed on the street. The veterans the citizens need.
You aught to check out the Q thread... you're missing the forest for the trees.Some or all of what Q released, may be true. But I think Qanon was just someone engaging in fantasy, or enjoying people being misled, or both.
Media is compromised by the deep state/CIA et al.And the fake news media ?
Sounds kinda like You Tube to me.Media is compromised by the deep state/CIA et al.
They use the public airwaves - according to GROK:
Media using public airwaves has a responsibility to report facts accurately, as these airwaves are a public resource regulated by governments to serve the public interest. In the U.S., for example, the FCC grants licenses with the expectation that broadcasters prioritize truth and public welfare over propaganda or misinformation. However, this responsibility is often undermined by commercial interests, partisan bias, or sensationalism, as seen in cases like Fox News’ 2023 Dominion settlement, where false election claims led to a $787.5 million payout. Legally, outlets can face consequences for defamation or deliberate falsehoods, but no strict mandate enforces "truth" in all reporting, leaving room for bias. On the flip side, some argue media should have freedom to interpret events, as long as they don’t knowingly spread lies, to foster open debate. The balance is tricky—public airwaves demand accountability, but defining "facts" can be contentious.
"Defining facts can be contentious" can be fixed by citing actual sources and not "according to sources" or "an anonymous source". Anything else is less than professional. Anything more would be libel.
But Youtube isn't using the public airwaves...Sounds kinda like You Tube to me.
"Defining facts can be contentious" can be fixed by citing actual sources and not "according to sources" or "an anonymous source". Anything else is less than professional. Anything more would be libel.