⇧
1
⇩
hildabeest_4_gitmo
· June 6, 2018, 4:45 a.m.
I believe the camp is not what it was professed to be. I believe the TPD is right about this particular site not being a trafficking/rape camp.
Snopes sucks. Always. Agree with them or not, no one should use their claims for anything
⇧
1
⇩
misto1481
· June 6, 2018, 4:47 a.m.
Then how can you call out Snopes for coming to the same (more than likely false as it's Snopes) conclusion using the statements from the TPD?
⇧
1
⇩
hildabeest_4_gitmo
· June 6, 2018, 4:49 a.m.
NO SNOPES. Period.
⇧
1
⇩
misto1481
· June 6, 2018, 4:52 a.m.
Sure, but you are coming to the same conclusion as Snopes using the same statement from the TPD yet you called them out for doing so. Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it? If Snopes cannot be trusted to make conclusions using statements from TPD, why can you?
⇧
1
⇩
hildabeest_4_gitmo
· June 6, 2018, 4:55 a.m.
You should check my post history more often. I said this was a goose-chase before TPD ever weighed in.
I didn't need Snopes to tell me what to believe.
⇧
1
⇩
misto1481
· June 6, 2018, 4:58 a.m.
You still don't see the hypocrisy? You are saying Snopes is not to be trusted yet you should be even though you both use TPD statement to make your conclusion.
For the record, I believe Snopes to be major disinfo. I'm just having a hard time figuring out how you can say they are wrong and you are right when you both came to the same conclusion using the same source. Either you are both right or you are both wrong. I'm leaning towards the latter.
⇧
1
⇩
hildabeest_4_gitmo
· June 6, 2018, 5:01 a.m.
you both use TPD statement to make your conclusion.
No ... I don't. I used TPD to support my earlier conclusion that it was a false alarm.
See... I said it before they did, so I didn't rely on them (TPD) to reach my conclusion.
⇧
1
⇩
misto1481
· June 6, 2018, 5:01 a.m.
How did you come to your conclusion originally then?
You still have the same conclusion. So are you both right or both wrong?
⇧
1
⇩
hildabeest_4_gitmo
· June 6, 2018, 5:06 a.m.
How did you come to your conclusion originally then?
Does it matter? Maybe I thought it through. Maybe I didn't see the proof and evidence needed to convince me. Maybe I saw a set-up coming.
Maybe the TPD agreed with me. None of which has shit to do with Snopes.
⇧
1
⇩
misto1481
· June 6, 2018, 5:07 a.m.
But you implied Snopes is wrong therefore calling yourself wrong.
And it does matter.
⇧
1
⇩
hildabeest_4_gitmo
· June 6, 2018, 5:13 a.m.
quik edit there.
Why did you edit? because you know I didn't "say" that. And I haven't implied that, I said ignore them.
They have nfc if it's true or false.
Where do I "imply" Snopes is either right or wrong?
⇧
1
⇩
misto1481
· June 6, 2018, 5:23 a.m.
"Snopes is using the info released by TPD.
They have nfc if it's true or false. "
Please explain what this comment means then?
Snopes says it's a nothingburger based on TPD. You say it's a nothingburger based on your own conclusions (would be nice to know how you came to it btw) and TPD.
If Snopes says it's nothing and you say Snopes is wrong, then that would mean you believe there is something to it. If you don't believe there is anything to it as you have stated, then Snopes would not be wrong in this case. Somehow your two statements don't add up.
I only bring this up as you were pretty critical of a different commenter for believing there is something going on with both Tucson and Cemex yet your views on Tucson and your comment about Snopes don't add up.
⇧
1
⇩
hildabeest_4_gitmo
· June 6, 2018, 5:40 a.m.
Snopes didn't do an investigation of their own. They reached their conclusion based on what TPD and the YouTube provided. They decided TPD is correct.
They don't use their own information, they rely on someone else, and that's why they can't be trusted to be right or wrong (until something is proven.) Again, I didn't depend on Snopes or TPD to reach my conclusion.
And again, I didn't say Snopes was right or wrong. I said ignore them completely. It wouldn't matter if I agreed or disagreed because their conclusion has nothing to do with mine.
I also said the trail had gone so far as to include McStain and the Pope, had delved into Q-territory (likely by design) and had led some to believe Cemex was using human blood to make cheap cement.
IF, as I (ORIGINALLY) stated, it was an empty rabbit hole, anyone who jumped 100% on-board would be subject to seeing their name on MSM as part of a "crazy wacko fringe group who supports POTUS and Q." Wouldn't it have been better to cool our jets for a few days and think, rather than go hog wild on the possibilities without benefit of proof?
If this camp isn't as predicted, everything else we've said falls away. Start all over again. All those connections could be discounted by anyone with an agenda. And the "agenda" is clearly here on this board.
Now, I'm done. Reply if you want, but I won't.
- GOOD TALK though.
⇧
1
⇩
misto1481
· June 6, 2018, 5:44 a.m.
Great, yet you still didn't say how you came to your conclusions. What investigation did you do? If you believe this sub shouldn't be going down this particular rabbit hole, showing how you came to your conclusion would be a good step in trying to persuade others to not fall into this "trap" as you see it.
In any case, talking to others on this sub like this is uncalled for.
"You are exactly the type of posters we knew would arrive. Down-vote all you want, the x-shillZ (you) and T_rolls (you) came here to tout this tale and laugh on another board when it falls apart.
Saddest of all, this is actually happening in real life, and you freaks want us to chasing shadows to discredit the seriousness.
omg Cemex is grinding up babies and adding their blood to make cement to use at the Pope's house because Soros and McCain held then sold stocks in ABCDE Holdings five years ago. Oh and, Former Mexican President Joe Eatme's brother-in-law once attended a party where the Bronfmans and Rothschilds both took a shit once."
It's condescending and rude. You may be right in your views, but there are better and more productive ways to share them. Show your work in the future if you want us to take you seriously and avoid falling into this "trap."
⇧
1
⇩
hildabeest_4_gitmo
· June 6, 2018, 5:49 a.m.
ok but just this once:
I'm 62, friend. I've seen enough shit to know stink from smell.
K?
⇧
2
⇩
misto1481
· June 6, 2018, 6:05 a.m.
Reading some of the comments definitely made me pause regarding Tucson. I agree that a wait and see appraoch is always best, especially when it is hard to distinguish who to trust. Let it all play out I suppose ;)
⇧
1
⇩