Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
Madison Test Constance's Limits Constance wanted a challenge to see how much weight she could handle #bbwwiththinchicks #bbwdomination #bbwfacesitting #squash #smother #petite #CCC #DDP #follow Clips4Sale.com Mistress Madison 📍 Chicago, IL
21,387 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
![[🥀🪷] Wrote this as an archive because I finally had free time to put my thoughts about them into words, even if it’s a little late. You don’t have to agree with what I wrote here, just as I don’t expect everyone to read them the way I do. This is simply how Murong Qingyi and Ren Susu have always been to me. I’ve always loved stories where two people understand each other better than anyone else in the world, because they’re also the only two people capable of hurting each other that deeply. We all know that Qingyi and Susu do not love in the same direction. We also know that, despite how similar they are, they learned completely different ways to survive. They’re mirrors of each other. Both carry wounds that began long before they met. Both learned sacrifice. Both spent years believing their own happiness mattered less than everyone else’s. And yet, somewhere along the way, their hearts arrived at opposite conclusions about what love is supposed to look like. This is where they begin hurting each other without ever intending to. When Qingyi senses distance between them, his instinct is always to move closer. Not because he wants to control her, but because closeness has always been his way of loving. If someone he loves is suffering, he wants to stand beside them. If they’re carrying something heavy, he wants to carry it with them. If they’re walking into danger, his first instinct is to follow. Susu is the exact opposite. The moment she realizes the person she loves might get hurt because of her, her instinct is to step away. Not because she loves them less, but because distance has become her way of protecting the people she loves. She would rather carry everything alone than watch someone else bleed in her place. And so, without either of them intending to, they begin moving in opposite directions while chasing the very same thing, a love that feels safe enough to stay. What makes this so sad is that neither of them is choosing fear over love. It is that both of them loved with everything they had, but each had learned a different way of protecting that love. Qingyi isn’t trying to pressure her. Susu isn’t trying to reject him. Both are speaking the language of love. They simply aren’t speaking the same dialect. To Qingyi, love means staying. To Susu, love means leaving before staying becomes another tragedy. To Qingyi, sharing someone’s burden is the purest form of devotion. To Susu, becoming someone’s burden is the greatest fear she can imagine. So every time Qingyi helps her, Susu mistakes it for yet another sacrifice she is asking him to make. And every time Susu disappears, Qingyi experiences another loss he cannot understand. Yet the comfort one seeks becomes the discomfort the other experiences, leaving them to mistake protection for pain. Qingyi finds safety in knowing that someone chooses to stay, even when life becomes difficult. Having grown up questioning whether he would ever be chosen, he comes to equate permanence with love itself. To stay, despite everything, is not merely what he longs for. It is how he loves. Susu finds safety in making sure the people she loves have the chance to survive, even if that survival no longer includes her. After carrying guilt for so many losses, love becomes inseparable from sacrifice. In her heart, devotion is measured by what she is willing to give up, until leaving becomes the greatest kindness she believes she can offer. So love becomes something they keep missing, not because it isn’t there, but because they keep meeting it from opposite directions. Qingyi sees distance and feels another unanswered question. Susu sees closeness and feels another life she might destroy. Neither of them is responding to the present. They’re responding to the stories trauma has been whispering to them since they were children Qingyi asks, “Will you choose me this time?” Susu asks, “Will you still alive if I do?” Those two questions are sad because neither of them is wrong. Both fears are profoundly human. Both were born long before they ever found each other. Yet to call it incompatibility would be too simple. What stood between them was not the absence of love, but the presence of fears neither of them knew how to name. It’s sad because their deepest fears are perfectly designed to trigger each other’s. His greatest fear has always been losing the person he loves without understanding why. Her greatest fear has always been becoming the reason the person she loves loses everything. So, he moves closer. She moves away. This is the point where they begin to wound one another. Both believe they’re loving correctly. The same moment calls for closeness in one heart and distance in the other, leaving them to mistake each other’s protection for rejection. But love was never about asking him to stop staying or asking her to stop protecting. It was about helping them understand the fear hidden beneath each other’s choices. They have to see each other not as the enemy of their needs. They were simply same person, but both are shaped by different wounds and protecting themselves in the only language they have ever known. Because in the end, it was never that Qingyi and Susu didn’t love each other enough. It was that they were both trying to protect the person they loved and simply searching for safety in love, each in the only way their heart had ever learned. One stayed. One left. Neither choice came from the absence of love. Both came from quiet hope. They were never standing on opposite sides of love. They were simply standing on opposite sides of fear. They are not simply one person who chases and another who runs. They are two damaged people whose deepest fears are perfectly designed to trigger each other’s. Perhaps it was never about changing the way they love. It was about trusting the very thing they had feared their entire lives, that someone could stay without abandoning them, and someone could stay without being destroyed by loving them. Qingyi believes that if he can endure enough, love will survive. If he can bear enough pain, make enough sacrifices, stay through every storm, then perhaps no one will leave him again. But love was never asking him to prove how much he could survive. It was asking him to trust that he did not have to carry everything alone. Susu has mistaken fear for love for so long that it has become the language through which she loves. She calls it cowardice, because leaving feels easier than watching the people she loves suffer because of her. If she had loved Qingyi a little less, perhaps she could have spoken the words she kept swallowing. She might have trusted him with the truth instead of trying to protect him from it. But she loved him so completely that silence felt kinder than asking him to bear the unbearable weight of loving her. In Jane Austen words, “If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more.” Susu believes love means protecting Qingyi from herself. Qingyi believes love means protecting Susu from everything else. Neither realizes that love cannot thrive when one person is always the protector and the other is always the one being protected. At some point, they must trust each other enough to become partners instead of martyrs. Because the truth is, there was never a version of their story where no one paid a price. Love had already asked something of them both. The only question was whether they would face those consequences separately, each trying to protect the other in silence, or together, with open hearts, clear eyes, and the quiet peace that comes from choosing one another even when the future cannot be promised. Also, I don’t agree with everything Qingyi and Susu did. Sometimes I wanted to scream at both of them, moments I wished they had chosen differently. But perhaps that’s what makes them feel human. They aren’t defined by perfect decisions, but by deeply human ones, choices made in fear, in love, and in the desperate hope of protecting each other. Once you understand the fear beneath their choices, it’s much harder to reduce either of them to hero or villain. So, please… go easy on them. They’ve gone through so much. ❤️🩹 “Who loves who more?” At this point, I think it’s safe to say the person suffering the most in this relationship is me.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2083704976082395195/amplify_video_thumb/2083699973393350656/img/Am4ah0QCAz2NORaU.jpg)
!["If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2030480027666747596/amplify_video_thumb/2030373285926694913/img/_-25iW0LmiKeRcjI.jpg)