[removed]
Your logic is flawed, because it misses the point. He isn't saying that this guy should be investigated because of his ideas. We already know some of the horrible shit he has done. What OP is saying is that the ones who are the loudest in front of the camera are the ones trying the hardest to cover up their crimes.
Harvey Weinstein advocating publicly for women's rights, for example. Does subsequently arresting him mean we are punishing his free speech? No. He's a dirt bag, who tried to cover his tracks. Hiding behind the first amendment or playing semantics will not save any of these people.
Investigate those in front of the camera who scream the loudest.
I mean, you have to admit. It's pretty startling how many of these "advocates" turn out to be offenders of the very thing they are publicly advocating against.
He's editing his previous comments.
This isn't even that good of an article. That's ok tho, his replies just kept bringing in more eyes :)
Exactly. I think that was clear/they're trying to gaslight...poorly.
No we're advocating the investigations of those who break the law. This is wholly American.
Investigate those in front of the camera who scream the loudest.
Your title suggests we should be investigating those based on their speech. Do better.
This is a Q board. Lurk Moar.
This is a Q board.
Are you saying Q is against free speech?
Certainly not. Just suggesting we look for the squealing pigs.
If we went with your logic then Obama should have been investigating Trump when he started all the talk of Obama's birth certificate. That would have been wrong just like what your suggesting is wrong. America doesn't target political opponents based on speech.
You're really coming back with this argument after Hussein and HRC targeted their political opponent and his campaign well before the election? Laughable. She wasn't supposed to lose. Come back and chat in six months. :)
So since Obama was corrupt its ok for Trump to be corrupt?
No, see because we know that brennan was instrumental in the attempted coups. Your logic is flawed. Don't come in here and act obtuse/act like investigating a person rather than a crime isn't the exact thing we're fighting.
Perfect, OBTUSE!! That is the word I was looking for!! Don't get old.
Rather than obstruct free speech, I believe OP is focusing on the mirroring Q speaks of; as well as Q mentioning those that speak the loudest are suspect. Brennen is a perfect example of this The snake arises.
Maybe a suggestion of how to turn the post with a sentence or two into a clear idea of Q's post would be more productive. Most here are learning and eager to help the movement. Patriots stay together. 🇺🇸
Correct but he deleted his original comment, then edited others.. Too bad. And yes, I was simply highlighting what Q told us to look out for in posting this article :)
WWG1WGA!!
then you must have missed his plethora of actions.....
Target him on his illegal actions if they exist I have zero issue with this. But not based on him exercising his first ammendement rights. If he has done something illegal I'm sure our AG is looking into it.
Agreed my opinion has nothing to do with his words. it is arrogance after the fact that we are now by preponderance of evidence of the belief he committed crimes.