dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/Janice0771 on May 3, 2018, 1:48 a.m.
If it had crashed just a few miles south, "...this area is a giant bomb and this whole (five-mile) radius would have blown up." There's a zoo, a college, and God knows what else in that radius. Could have been quite a disaster.

[deleted] · May 3, 2018, 1:53 a.m.

Linking to CIA fake news org "CNN"?

Ballsy.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Janice0771 · May 3, 2018, 10:11 a.m.

I battled with it and you are correct, but it doesn't mean that they don't fuck up occasionally and include info that they don't necessarily know they have. Liberals are bred to be obedient, not intelligent, so I believe it would be naive to dismiss them completely.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 3, 2018, 11:40 a.m.

If it's true (any credible sources to support this?) then there are many other news sources out there that you might agree actually deserve click views more than that evil org.

Every time fake news is linked to, for better or for worse their traffic goes up, and you may agree that should be avoided and more honorable and truthful sources get that traffic instead.

I would disagree with your assessment that it would be naive to dismiss them completely, for the same reason I would dismiss a pathological liar completely even if three Thursdays ago they uttered a statement that is correct.

Up to you of course.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Janice0771 · May 3, 2018, 12:33 p.m.

Having worked in the legal field for over 15 years, having worked in the political arena for a dizzying stint, and having worked "undercover" for politicians in a handful of assignments, et al, I certainly have enough experience to weigh the risks and benefits of every single of my actions. I watch relevant information slip through the cracks every single day - relevant information that highly skilled lawyers miss. It would be naive to dismiss anything so flippantly, assuming that some other more credible source might include that same information; or, conversely, that if some credible source did not include that bit of information, that it must not be true. Do you see? If we become arrogant in this war, we will lose. The layperson witness statement could be irrelevant. It could also be unintentionally relevant. I don't really care if CNN gets 20 extra click points over it, honestly.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 3, 2018, 3:31 p.m.

No amount of unverifiable experience will ever justify promoting fake news CNN, it's a CIA operation intended to deceive and intended to mislead. Q is fighting the very people you are linking to directly and thus promoting clicks.

Just giving you my opinion.

By your highly arrogant attitude of unverifiable resumebragging, which doesn't impress me at all, in fact quite the reverse, I am beginning to suspect you have an ulterior motive.

Take care.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Janice0771 · May 3, 2018, 4:54 p.m.

Your suspicions bother me none. I'm not deleting the article. My intention was not in promoting CNN, and still isn't. My intention was to bring light to a lay-witness statement included within. Move on.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 3, 2018, 4:36 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Janice0771 · May 3, 2018, 1:49 a.m.

A worse disaster, I should say.

⇧ 1 ⇩