All LB
>>6054045 this was laptop fail replying to
these
It's staring you in the face and rather than work through the
logic of what it means, you literally invent a theory out of
thin air, with zero evidence, and call it a plausible idea?
You can't make this up. First learn logic, then "Use Logic."
Well, that's absurd, so stay skeptical. There's zero evidence he's
committed a capital crime, let alone one that would result in a
hidden trial (tribunals are not) and death sentence. Neither
leaking memos nor lying to congress meet that standard. For that
matter, being convicted of lying to Congress is rather rare.
Oh FFS, "he" has been telling people about JA getting out for nearly
a year. Eventually it's bound to be right. And, not only that, JA isn't
out yet that any of know.
It is, but that wasn't my point and you know it. You avoided that because
you know I'm right. Part of waking up is recognizing when you are
creating your own narrative and calling it fact because it suits your
beliefs. Woke people don't do that.
Q never said she was arrested. ETS is a con artist, a Pied Piper, and
he has reformed himself multiple times faking his way out and deleting
all of his posts so nobody can call him on them. He got shot, the CIA
found him out, Majic12 was after him, sigh, it goes on.
"Thursday" is a good reason.
You don't know how this works, do you? I replied to both you and
the guy you said had interesting and plausible research. That's
a theory. That's literally what a theory is. Seriously, if you
don't even understand language, how on earth do you consider
yourself capable of knowing when someone like that anon
you think has done plausible research, by making something
up without evidence, is just plain full of shit?
That still wasn't the point. Comey hasn't committed a capital
crime, period. That's my point. People saying he committed treason
simply don't know what treason is. It is no surprise that none of
them know what conditions must be met for someone to face a
military tribunal, either, nor do they know how the tribunal process
works. But that was irrelevant to my point.
If you entertain any that don't have supporting evidence, then
see my point above. I never said it was YOUR theory, either.
Start with the theory behind language.
What? Neither does the person claiming he did. Are you serious?
Are you new to the way our system of justice works? You don't just
get to run around accusing people of crimes iwhtout SOME evidence.
We know AT MOST that he MAY have committed perjury.
Are you really the sort of person that thinks it's OK to accuse people
of serious criminal behavior because you have a gut feel?
I think someone in this discussion is new, but it ain't me. You've
got a long hard road ahead of you if you don't figure out how this
works.
Of course I make you laugh - you're simple minded and don't
know how legtimate theorizing works. It starts with EVIDENCE.
Making stuff up isn't even theory, it's called CONJECTURE.
I know, it's a bigger word than "IS," but maybe you should try
to understand why that matters.
And, what's that supposed to mean? Did you reply to me
with something that's not evidence of a capital crime to…
prove that I'm right?
Losing, hehe. Your definition is lacking substance. Just like those "theories" you entertain, you know, the ones nobody can support. Keep banging the drum.
Reading is fundamental.
What evidence do you have that he was one of the plotters, I wonder?
Oh and while you're at it, learn the difference between an argumentum
ad hominem (fallacy) and a simple insult. Hardly a surprise
that you don't know the difference, actually.
Who is Doug?
When you look at the original, it's obvious that Q was responding to someone
else, trip-code or otherwise. The one time Q did mention HRC arrest, he said
"not arrested (yet)."
Know it doesn't mean that at all. It means that ONLY because
you want it to mean that. Seriously, this is my point exactly:
you want it to be true so you look at everything through glasses
that confirm your beliefs. The more logical conclusion is that
he's referring to OTHERS that committed treason, particulalry
since there is evidence of that. C'mon, anon, be better than this.
Everything else you said is, again, manufactured out of
whole cloth. I don't understand the psychology of people that make
things up then convince themselves it's a fact.
*no, not Know.
Oh, I usually filter him. Haven't lately, however.
You said sophist in response to my insult, which means you think it
was a fallacious argument. It was not. I didn't say you called it an
ad hominem, I said you don't even know what that is. See what I mean,
you don't even understand plain English, how can you expect to
understand any "theory" from anybody?
It's not a fallacy to insult. Now you went off digging to find SOMETHING
to make you look less simple-minded. I get it, you don't understand language.
That's OK. The first step is admitting you have a problem.
Grasping at straws. No, it is not. It's called an insult. It's that simple.
A parody account.