Tyb
Kushner never "needed hundreds of millions to bail out his financial concerns"
Not this time.
Oh so that's why the globalist cult considers Anons enemy #2 after Q+/Q, and spend millions every year sending shills and bots to stop it.
Whew, for a minute there I thought you were saying the cult actually has a chance if that's their strat.
Kek
>i have no PROOF of that and neither do you
All that censorship, all the thousands of 'anti-QAnon' hit pieces in the media, all the attacks, Anon has plenty proof to make your pretend ignorance look retarded
>the fact that this place ISN'T shut down argues AGAINST your fantasy
Logical fallacy.
They tried to shut us down, and they continue to try.
Just because they (you) suck at it, it doesn't negate the fact we're 'enemy #2' to the losers.
The only thing you 'predicted' is your own repeat failure pattern.
You didn't disprove Anon's post at all, you just shat the bed and pretended that is victory.
Look at your attacks now. All for what was it you said: memes posted on an anonymous board.
Kek, your actions are proof I'm right as far as your miserable life is concerned.
You again just proved Anon correct, and now you're contradicting yourself even further.
You spend all this time here attacking, all that time and energy, THAT BY YOUR OWN ACCOUNT, is merely 'posting memes waiting for God'
Well if that's all you really thought it was, you wouldn't even be here.
Anon doesn't need to prove shit to you, you need to prove your claims which you clearly can't do because you're negating them all by yourself.
The moar you attack, the moar you prove Anon correct.
>one minute you say they rewrite history all the time
>the next you say they're powerless to shut down one pissy little website
Those are not inconsistent statements you stupid moron
>define proof as you understand it
Ask the 'expert' whose definition apparently includes knowing what everyone else knows:
For Anon, Q3906 has good commentary,
>you cannot
Pretty sure absence of proof is not proof of absence.
If you write a letter to some prominent physicist, asking to describe quantum theory, and they don't respond, your conclusion is they CAN'T?
Kek, 'duly noted'.
Well I could, but first tell me your academic level, so that I don't accidentally post something that goes over your head.
I'd rather be as technically accurate as YOUR capacity allows.
After all, you're the receiver.
So which level can you handle?
You can't answer what level you're capable of handling?
I'll wait for you to answer that before I post a definition.
BTW, have you reviewed Q3906 which I cited the first time you asked?
Excellent dig anon.
>is defined by what it has been taught to think.
Did you just call yourself an 'it'?
Ok, then the definition I use for proof is defined by what I have been taught to think it is defined by
Your logic works well thanks for your help cousin it.
There, that should adequately address your question. Proof is defined by what it has been taught to think.