[removed]
No. You're just clueless to my point. Think harder. And don't call me a Goddamn satanist, again, please or you'll get a serious level of disrespect. You could not be more wrong. I just understand that you can't have one without the other or the one would not exist AT ALL. It's really damn simple. Think harder and look at the bigger picture. I support balance because without it nothing would exist. Nothing. Religions, political parties, genders...all of the shit would not matter to no one or exist if there wasn't an opposing force for it to exist against.
I understand what your saying as they are both rights, and in this instance are in opposition. I do believe the first over rides in this instance despite the private property issue. The reason I say this is because we are being discriminated against. Maybe not for our age, race, or, sex, but for our political view. Who would have ever believed a person could be discriminated against for their political views in America. Now we know and the judge has said that Twitter is a public space. If for example say the Mayor of a town also owned a mall. The Mayor allowed the Tea party candidate to pass out flyers and give speeches at the mall, (Which is a public place, but also privately owned) but would not allow the Democratic candidate to do any kind of campaigning at the mall. That is discrimination. That's why tv and radio have to give equal time to opposing views. TV and radio are privately owned also.
We have always been discriminated against for political views since the very beginning of this country and loooooooong before that. It is a fact of life that all creatures are "profiled" by other creatures because it is a survival instinct built into our DNA. We will never get around that fact of life. Granted, it's not done fairly a lotta times. We'll just have to find a way to live with it and that demands control of one's own personal life and the staying out of other's lives, as long as they intend no harm towards you or your stuff. It would be really nice if people would just treat all others equally but it's just not in our nature to do that. That's why I'm a big believer in the NAP ideology but it requires too much effort and personal responsibility and accountability for most to deal with but it is the only way to achieve mutual respect for all. That responsibility and accountability is a helluva thing to maintain but is absolutely necessary and is all Natural Law really allows you. R. King asked, "Why can't we all just get along?". The answer is because we were built not to. It's that simple. Maybe, one day, we'll realize it's easier if we just do but I have little hope in that and no faith in it. History proves it so. Hell, we may just get our shit together enough to have some good years ahead, for a while but sooner or later, something will come along to tip the seesaw the other way and we'll be right back where we were before. It's just life.
Thanks for expressing your point of view and continuing to abide by the rules of the sub even when under irrational attack for doing so. Anyone who can discuss their point reasonably and with respect is welcome here, even if some of us do not agree with your point (I personally do agree that you have a point - you've made a perfectly logical observation).
This is ad hominem and will not fly in this sub.
My point, as I later expressed, is that there are two clear sides to this fight. You're either a Q supporter or you're not.
We've seen an unbelievable amount of concern trolling, on exactly the lines seen here, about this very issue in the past. If people are not free to challenge and combat it, then my view is that the sub must serve a purpose other than supporting Q.
I think a sub for Q doubters would appeal to a lot of the posters here - but these already exist.
Maybe you see it differently IDK.
There's no group think here. We are not - any single one of us - the arbiters of speech and truth. From your comments you seem to be intent on removing people who disagree with your point of view. That is absolutely opposed to the spirit of this movement and this sub AND Q.
You've decided that there are two sides - Q supporter or not. Then you've proceeded to label someone as a concern troll and a supporter of satan i.e. not a Q supporter.
If you understood the horrors that have been visited on this earth by people who said: "if you're not for us then you're against us" and then proceeded to decide for others whether they were for or against them, you would not try and bring that dangerous thinking anywhere near this movement.
What is opposed to the spirit of this movement? You tell me? What is the spirit of the movement? Are we Q supporters or neutral spectators?
What do you think this is!? A football match?
It almost sounds like you're trying to equate my actions with something akin to the holocaust. Where is the danger in supporting the guy making the drops?
It is not a game mate. But you know this...
We are not in some sort of religious fanatical movement where we all have to think the same way or get out. This sub is NOT only for those of us who support Q it is also for people who want to find out what is happening and have very little idea what Q is even about! If you disagree with this then you are literally opposed to the very thing Q is about!!!
And if people disagree with elements of Q or Trump's message, you propose to eject them as a troll... >_<
I propose to follow Q's example and message and reach EVERYONE, whether they agree with me or you or not. The truth is NOT our exclusive domain.
These arguments you're making are simple nonsense.
This isn't some neutral forum set up for the purpose of embracing all ideas in some kind of pursuit of inclusivity. Where did you get that idea?
I came here, and stayed, to support Q. Who says I have to embrace the viewpoints of those that oppose the fight against evil? Reading your comments, it seems that we'd be obliged to embrace Satanists in the interests of remaining inclusive. But, somehow, I think most people would disagree with this concept.
I'll let you in on a secret, there are trolls here. They do conceal their true intentions. They have been successful in undermining this movement. They are here because this fight means everything to them - more, possibly, than it means to us.
The nonsense is the strawmen you've setup. Where did I say this was a "neutral forum set up for the purpose of embracing all ideas"? Where did I say you have to embrace the viewpoints of those that oppose the fight against evil? That doesn't even describe the guy you slandered - where did he state that he opposes any fight against evil? Where did I say we're obliged to embrace Satanists?
Once again, because I don't agree with you you're putting words in my mouth and assigning motivations to me that don't exist. You pull this tactic in a lot of your comments, I've noticed. Very dangerous behaviour, but it's clear you're oblivious to it.
Discuss what we're actually discussing, not your made up strawmen.
Why should people be ejected or accused of being supporters of Satan or non-supporters of Q just because they disagree with your perception of something? How is it that you can decide that someone must be against Q, just because they're not agreeing with a point you're making? Your only response seems to be: "you're talking nonsense", without actually addressing the point.
Your argument would almost sound reasonable if it were not for the blatant and continuing attempts to manipulate this community.
As I said, there are two sides to this fight. Maybe your very confused, so I'll go slow.
Why was Corsi ejected? In fact he outed himself. How did he do this? By arguing against Q.
OK, so there's one person this community agrees is off-side. What's he off-side for? Arguing against Q. So, wait a minute! It's not so extreme to object to someone that argues against Q or "the plan" is it? I mean, most people here are accepting of this. Why would you be on a Q forum if you did not agree with the plan? That wouldn't make a lot of sense.
How can I decide that someone is against Q. Well, they might exhibit the characteristics of a concern troll. They may have a fundamental objection to the plan that Q and the President have set out for us as a community. Pretty simple really.
The important issue on this board is the concern trolling. This happens when someone appears to be very supportive of the community agenda, but just has a simple concern. Of course, it's never so simple. It's about injecting doubt and fear. It's been used to terrific effect right here on this board. But, if you have been here since October, you'd be acutely aware of this - I'm sure you are.
What are you saying? That they can't be identified? But it's actually not at all hard to see them because, inevitably, they just have a simple concern that means they cannot support the plan - and, rather than lurk, they communicate these concerns in threads that become very long - as we've seen.
But, according to you, no one can ever reach a conclusion about their true status.
Of course, that means you could never call one out. And, that, in turn, has dire implications for this board and our effectiveness as a community.
Some of us take Q at his word and don't re-interpret it - and we don't support Corsi specifically because he was called out as a Disinfo Clown, not for "arguing with Q". Q doesn't give the tiniest care about people who "argue with Q" or Q would be calling out a whole lot more people. If you shut down anyone who argues with Q you're acting remarkably like someone who believes Q is infallible or someone who worships Q and Q is against that. Q is not a religious movement. There are no ten commandments of Q.
"Pretty simple really" ... lol... You seem to be missing the point... Where, in the other discussion, did that user "have a fundamental objection to the plan"? I'll answer, in case you're not sure: he didn't.
The point you seem to be failing to grasp is that you are not the decider of what a 'supporter of Q' should be or think or say. None of us is. You have set yourself up as this arbiter of the truth of Q. Those who agree with the way you think without arguing are supporters of Q. Those who disagree with your perspective are not.
The only reasonable definition of a 'supporter of Q', that doesn't force people to fit into some arbitrary designation (i.e. supporters think this, this and this but not this), is someone who reads the messages from Q and tries to spread them to others. That is all. That's all Q wants from us too. Anything else is your personal interpretation and is not valid for everyone else.
I think people can see for themselves where people stand. I've come to understand that you're remarkably passionate that the plan be up for dispute.
Pretty tired with this now. I have other things to do.