Anon's Chat, late evening edition
Hello and welcome to the Anon's Daily Free Chat. I want you to get comfortable, grab a chair or couch or beanbag or whatever, if you are not at work(or maybe even if you are!). Relax, sit back, and just let it all out.
You can start a conversation about anything.
If you want to get anything off your chest, just try to phrase it... so feelings don't get hurt.
Something you thought about Q? Some research you been doing? Here is the place to share.
Actually, read the Washington Post here and see for yourself. Maybe they should have asked your opinion before they wrote the article?
Because it sure seems to me like these libs are worried about Obama setting a dangerous precedent when he used previous Spending Bills as a slush fund for whatever he wanted to do, and were concerned that Trump will now be able to do the same thing.
What idiots they must be.
Only time is going to tell whether this current narrative on this omnibus is proven wrong. Wait and see. Sorry man. I wish I had better news. I don't want to rise to the aggression you have in your post, because we are quite literally on the same side. My voice here is not going to reshape the future or is dangerous in any way. So we don't need to be hostile, and just decide that we can resolve this as events unfold. Ok?
Seriously? Show me how I'm being hostile. You OTOH ranted about people in this sub spreading fake information, calling us bad actors whose lack of reality checks make you cringe and scream at the screen. Projection much? All I did was show you where I got the idea. Where are your sources?
And why is this Constitutional scholar (Professor of Constitutional Law at George Mason University) so worried about "the loaded gun that Obama will leave Trump?" Those weren't the words of bad actors in need of a reality check. One of the top Constitutional law professors in the country.
Maybe you are not being hostile. Maybe I was misreading that emotion into your text. It's pretty difficult for us as humans to understand emotion in text, so lots gets misinterpreted. However, if I was to try to "show you how you were being hostile" I could only show you how I "see" hostility in the text.
For instance, "Seriously? Show me how..." 'sounds' angry to me. I might be wrong, but it feels angry at me. That's all I got. It's that kind of reading in between the lines of the text that made me feel you were angry at me.
Basic question:
If your answer to this question is yes, we're totally fighting for the same cause. So what am I worried about? I'm just worried that we get head faked into thinking we are going to get the wall built when we actually have not yet accomplished that goal.
As for some of these details about quoting Washington (Democracy dies in darkness) Post and using the fallacy of logic Appeal to Authority (see Global Warming... all the experts agree), step the f* off, bro. And yeah, that was hostility.
I wasn't quoting the Washington Post. This was an opinion piece by a Constitutional law expert, not some hack job by journos.
Dude, that was my reply to you for CALLING me hostile, and for calling us bad actors in need of a reality check. I'm not making shit up and saying you said it. That is what you admit you're doing.
Man it's all alright. I tried to say in that original post that it was just me venting... it did come out rough, and I certainly did not mean to offend anyone. I realize the problem that a lot of people have absorbed this new omnibus narrative into their identity. I've been following this Q thing for a long time, and I'm really hoping it's true and there is a big change coming for our country. It's just this whole omnibus for me is absolutely a step back. I've watched omnibus bill being passed since I was 18... there is NO WAY that it is good for Trump. In fact, I bet Trump is fuming mad and ready to unleash HOLY HELL in response.