Q Anon: 01/10/19 Trust Trump's Plan

I posted that as a way to say that we shouldn’t waste our time defending Wictor/D&S/Janda or the others. Unfortunately, you slid into defending Janda.

He’s a big boy. He can defend himself.
Or, just whine about perceived butthurt.

381 posted on 01/11/2019 1:51:04 PM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic, Anthropogenic Climate Alterations: The acronym explains the science.)

Stomp your foot.

That might work.

382 posted on 01/11/2019 1:51:13 PM PST by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)

Kevin Bacon
Animal House

383 posted on 01/11/2019 1:52:34 PM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic, Anthropogenic Climate Alterations: The acronym explains the science.)

When he whacked the catcher with a bat.

Yep.

384 posted on 01/11/2019 1:52:55 PM PST by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)

To: aMorePerfectUnion

385 posted on 01/11/2019 1:54:08 PM PST by Tammy8

TEXOKIE takes a short break from digging.

386 posted on 01/11/2019 1:55:32 PM PST by KitJ (Shall not be infringed...)

Nice! Almost two dozen zots in a thread that didn’t reach 100 posts!

387 posted on 01/11/2019 1:55:57 PM PST by EasySt ( Praise the Lord and pass the meme-unition!)

Gonna need those healthy lungs down in the warrens...

388 posted on 01/11/2019 1:57:26 PM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic, Anthropogenic Climate Alterations: The acronym explains the science.)

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

All I got to say about that is that it’s getting harder and harder to find dissident voices to read.

389 posted on 01/11/2019 1:59:27 PM PST by ichabod1 (He's a vindictive SOB but he's *our* vindictive SOB.)

Call’em Derpy McDerpface.

390 posted on 01/11/2019 1:59:53 PM PST by ichabod1 (He's a vindictive SOB but he's *our* vindictive SOB.)

Pound your small fists against the table.

391 posted on 01/11/2019 2:00:24 PM PST by ichabod1 (He's a vindictive SOB but he's *our* vindictive SOB.)

I do agree with you about good guys having a bad day at the border. Just interesting that TRULY random occurrences of “17” are showing up in so many reports!

392 posted on 01/11/2019 2:02:50 PM PST by TEXOKIE

393 posted on 01/11/2019 2:05:43 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion

“BleedsDodgerBlue”************************************************************************A Fresnan bleeding Dodger blue...hard to understand...Roseboro was nearly clipping Juan’s ear on return throws. Juan and John now amigos. Juan was briefly with the Dodgers. Until last year, never pulled for the Red Sox. It’s all good Bags...we’re on the same right side in a far more important war for the country, the world. We are mortal combatants, you as the tip of the spear and me as the ever hopeful lurker. Brothers

394 posted on 01/11/2019 2:06:27 PM PST by christianbasque (Toasting an Irish coffee to my beloved Carol & Sean...)

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

"KitJ: What are the chans saying about “public access to intel?”

I couldn't say. Been very busy this week and haven't had time to creep around over there.

As for your question, I think Q is posing a rhetorical question that supports his access to sensitive information. Like, "The public can't access intel, but we can".

395 posted on 01/11/2019 2:06:52 PM PST by KitJ (Shall not be infringed...)

Saw an excerpt at The Gateway Pundit, but here is the sauce, posting in entirety since it’s a blog (other than the chart).

Justice Ginsburg is Probably Quite Ill

http://www.joebentivegna.com/blog/justice-ginsburg-probably-quite-ill/

January 9, 2019 Joseph Bentivegna MD

First of all, I wish Justice Ginsburg well. She is a courageous advocate for women’s rights and a cultural icon. But in one reads between the lines of published reports on her situation, this woman is probably quite ill.

According to Kathleen Arberg, public information officer for the Supreme Court: “Two nodules in the lower lobe of her left lung were discovered incidentally during tests performed at George Washington University Hospital to diagnose and treat rib fractures sustained in a fall on November 7. [2018]” According to the surgeon who operated on the justice, Dr. Valerie Rusch, both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant. However, “post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease. Scans performed before surgery indicated no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. Currently, no further treatment is planned.”

Thus, from published reports from reputable sources, we know the following:

1. She had non-metastatic colon cancer removed in 1999
2. She had non-metastatic pancreatic cancer removed in 2010.
3. She had a stent placed in her coronary arteries in 2014
4. She fell in November of 2018 and broke three ribs.
5. She had surgery in December of 2018 and had two malignant nodules removed from her lungs.
6. Scans found no other cancer in her body.
7. She is 85 years old and has no history of being a smoker.

The most significant words from above are “two malignant nodules.” What does this mean?

First of all, malignant nodules are fancy words for small tumors, in general one that is about an inch or smaller in size. When a nodule is removed during surgery, it is quickly examined under the microscope by a pathologist. These doctors rarely see patients; rather they examine tissues and determine the cause of disease. Pathologists can usually determine quickly whether a nodule is benign or malignant, but in order to determine the actually type of cancer (that is the tissue source of the cancer), special preparation is required before microscopic examination. This can take several days or weeks to complete. At the time of this writing, we have no published reports stating the results of these tests – or even if they were ever done.

But since there were “two malignant nodules,” the odds are is that this is Stage IV or metastatic cancer – meaning that it has spread to the lungs from another organ system. Even with today’s modern technology, it is difficult to pinpoint small primary tumors. Otherwise we would be screening everyone to catch cancer earlier when it is easier to cure.

As noted above, Justice Ginsburg had colon cancer and pancreatic cancer in the past. Again, it is unlikely that these cancers are the source of her possible lung metastases. These cancers do not lie dormant for years. What is much more likely is that a small primary cancer exists – either a new one in the colon or pancreas, or another from another organ such as the liver, kidney or breast. If this is the case, her prognosis is poor, as summarized in the chart below.

[can’t copy chart]

This chart is not as complicated as in looks. For example, if 100 patients are diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer (meaning the cancer is not only in the colon but in another organ), 50 of those patients will still be alive and 50 will not be alive two years later. By five years, 12 will be alive and 88 will not. Keep in mind that these numbers vary according to various academic studies and oncologists (cancer doctors) may quibble as to their exact accuracy. Also keep in mind that there are other types of metastatic cancer that are not listed here. These are simply the more common ones.

However, there another more optimistic possibility: that the tumors removed are primary lung tumors. This is obviously what her doctors hoped for, or else they would not have subjected this frail-appearing 85-year-old woman to this brutal surgery. But it is unusual for there to be two primary tumors in the lungs at once – especially in a non-smoker. But if these are primary tumors and they have been completely excised, her prognosis could be excellent, up to a 92% 5-year survival.

But if this were the case, there should have been published reports stating that the pathology reports showed this to be a type of primary lung cancer. At the time of this writing, this has not occurred. Furthermore Justice Ginsburg appears to be so incapacitated that she cannot attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court – but this could be because she needs more time to recover from her surgery, not because she has cancer.

It is a shame that political junkies of all persuasions have been quite ghoulish in analyzing Justice Ginsburg’s prognosis, but this is what happens when our judiciary makes laws rather than interprets them. Supreme Court picks are now more important than elections in determining public policy, as can be seen by the blood sport that characterized Justice Kavanaugh’s recent confirmation hearings.

But in my medical opinion, the doctors and the media who have commented on her health are underestimating the severity of her illness. Here is the bottom line: President Trump has a reasonable chance – at least 35% – of replacing Justice Ginsburg if he finishes his term. If he wins reelection and survives four years, his chance of replacing her is at least 80%.

But as the Italians say at wedding anniversaries: “Cent anni.” (“May you live 100 hundred years.”) That is my wish for Justice Ginsburg.

396 posted on 01/11/2019 2:08:20 PM PST by little jeremiah (When we do not punish evildoers we are ripping the foundations of justice from future generations)

Beanball war that escalated to Roseboro firing a ball back to Koufax so close to Marichal’s head he clipped an ear.
Marichal then went nutso.

They became fast friends.

It was amazing back in the day, that things like this would be in the papers for days, giving more an more info each time. We couldn't wait to get at the paper each day.

397 posted on 01/11/2019 2:08:59 PM PST by stylin19a (2016 - Best.Election.Of.All.Times.Ever.In.The.History.Of.Ever)

I’m on the 8th show of the 1st season of what is a wonderful, unusual series...Patriot...looking forward to binging season 2. Love 17 as my step son was born on St. Patrick’s Day. Thank you Ich.

398 posted on 01/11/2019 2:12:39 PM PST by christianbasque (Toasting an Irish coffee to my beloved Carol & Sean...)

To: smileyface; ransomnote; Cats Pajamas; greeneyes; bagster; generally; Wneighbor; mairdie; ...

When I listened to that Janda vid, I took the info to mean that the DS individuals named were laying low.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Certainly not impossible, I can see that, but that was not my own personal impression. However, right now I don’t consider it relevant to the purposes of the data I’m seeking to collect.

I’m tracking WHEN these people disappear - for whatever reason. If they make a bodily appearance AFTER “laying low” as you put it, I believe that would be of significance, and would certainly give us a marker / date on that person.

It is difficult to gather that data up of last twitter/ last bodily appearance, if the question dow the line becomes....when did we last hear from or SEE “So and SO?” By gathering it as is develops, I will have it in an easier format to search rather than the entire net should it become of interest.

BTW, as I stated before, while I’m interested in gathering this data, and I’m willing to share, I am not able right now to do a lot of research and digging on it. Nor am I equipped to set up a “Last Seen” page right now, or even do a lot of organizing of it. I’m just focused right now on obtaining raw data - which would probably need to be verified at some point. Like Hansel and Gretel in the forest, I’m dropping as many breadcrumbs as I can so I can find the sources again which COULD become relevant.

399 posted on 01/11/2019 2:13:32 PM PST by TEXOKIE

God be with you Kay.

400 posted on 01/11/2019 2:14:09 PM PST by christianbasque (Toasting an Irish coffee to my beloved Carol & Sean...)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794