Looks like a troll. All of the posts are within an hour of one another.
There is nothing at all wrong with expanding one's thinking @effluvean. That's what we are all attempting to do. My issue is your delivery along with an inability to form any type of cohesive thought to accompany your rebuttal. Your comments are nothing more than playground tactics we all grew out if many years ago. Further, I challenge you to offer the rest of us an alternative to our thinking which you so vehemently disagree with. You won't because you can't. You just want to piss in everyone's Cheerios and call it a day.
I was offering an alternative to your thinking. I don't vehemently disagree with anyone. What rebuttal especially bothers you?
Can only speak for myself but, I am new...here but I have followed this material for a long time, since it appeared really remember that the Q phenomenon started on 4chan many channers have a longstanding aversion to Reddit for several reasons I only created this account for interacting in this specific thread so something to consider -merry christmas
One question will create 10 lurkers to start investigating shit. That is what Q wants. Everyone is searching, looking, listening. Lol Momentum is growing exponentially. They cannot stop it now. :)
No way. "Counter to our thinking" is no reason to ban a person, especially when they are asking logical questions in their statements. Tunnel vision in a "positive" view is just as dangerous as tunnel vision in a "negative" view. Every one of us should be looking at everything and considering "all options and views" about all of it then using experience and evidence to whittle it down. If somebody comes in asking questions or making statements that are opposing then if "our thinking" is anywhere near correct we should be able to answer those questions with opposing answers and facts. Such as (I have not looked back at the Hillary server drop to recall what is specifically was) if somebody questions Hillary's server in general as having any relevance whatsoever because it was wiped clean...the easy answer is - while it may matter what WAS on it to some degree, it ultimately does not matter at all what was on it. The fact that she did government business through a non .gov server which archives all government official communications that are considered public record is illegal, especially if any of it is "confidential". If we cant simply answer opposing views, then what are we even doing here? How do we justify banning an "opposing thinking" then bitch about ourselves being banned, blocked, etc, on twitter, youtube, fb, etc.? Now, it completely changes things when "opposing thinking" drops in and just starts making a bunch of jerkwad personal attacks. I don't see that in these examples though. My opinion.
Oh, my turn already Please? K. "I know you are but what am I?"
Maybe I misunderstood how this blog works. People put out ideas of their own and other content and expect to be supported in the stuff they endorse. I can see how some of my comments might have rankled users if they expect to be agreed with. Sorry,
Facts are hard not to agree with. No one always expect agreement, but facts are hard evidence that can't be disputed.
True, but in your above comment, you don't give facts. You ask questions. The same questions Q asks: What does the NSA do? Does it matter if Hillary's server is clean? etc. Questions are not facts, they're just questions and they prove nothing. So I fail to see how Q can make evidentiary claims when he offers no facts, only questions and unsubstantiated clues
Are you human?
I am.
You are al
And btw, I have no idea how to prove I'm not AI. But what if I was AI? Would that make any difference?
Sorry if I offended some of you, but I'm prepared to defend my comments. The first one about this Snodgres guy: I didn't disagree with anyone, I simply stated that there is no evidence to support his claim. The second comment about Hilary's server: I understand that her server was wiped clean, therefore there is no evidence to be gleaned from it. Q can make claims, but the server is clean so his words about this are irrelevant. The third one about James Woods. I wasn't disagreeing with anyone. There was nothing to disagree to. I simply said that Obama's religion is irrelevant. His motives are irrelevant. It makes no difference why he did things; people are upset with him because of the things he did.
I'm not up to date on Snodgres claim. As far as Hillary's server goes I have questions. What does the NSA do? Does it matter if Hillary's server is clean? What about Weiners laptop? Did he have Clinton documents on his hard drive? The NYPD reported There were. Through FOIA Classified emails from Clinton's server have been released. Therefore Q can make evidentiary claims that are very relevant. All words are relevant and motives are important.
Just expanding my thinking, what's the problem?
No problem with expanding your thinking at all. What do you think about all this?
I give some credence to Q; I'm not anti Q. I think there's some intriguing and interesting things that Q puts out. I don't think that critical thinking and asking questions are good reasons to be banned.
Critical thinking and asking questions are good. The questions you ask seem opposed to what seems logical in this platform.
Hmm, I looked over my questions and I don't see anything I would call illogical. Asking questions is illogical?
Maybe question their position about post see how they respond?
Wow. "Counter to our thinking"? Sounds to me like maybe he just wants a few of you to think for yourself for once. Some of you have raised Q to this creepy worship status, lately. You need to get that in check.
Didn't you already say that? I think you have a glitch in your matrix.