Q
Good morning, FReeQs!
I was thinking about newbies asking questions. They show up and ask things like “when will HRC be arrested?” or “where is Assange?” and want answers.
Sometimes we “know” the answer. I “know” that Sessions is a white hat, not only because Q says “Trust Sessions” but also because of evidence that one can see when one’s eyes are open and looking for it. (Example: the “coincidence” of Sessions being in Little Rock to talk about school security, then planeloads of evidence boxes flying out of Little Rock shortly after.) Is it possible that Sessions is either a black hat or a dud? Yes. But not very probably in my mind.
Sometimes we disagree and argue about the answer. Mueller and Rosenstein - white, black, gray hats? Or some other color?!
I think the arguments and disagreements are IMPORTANT! It’s what separates us from the MSM which dispenses the “correct” views and answers to the waiting and gullible sheeple.
Should we argue until we reach a consensus? NO! It’s nice to know what the consensus is. It’s nice to hash things out, but let’s not try to force everyone into lock step agreement. As long as people are not posting lies, and as long as people are not making personal attacks on other posters, let’s encourage disagreement and argument. (Consensus is how we got “climate change”.)
I hope I will lay out my case for questions like “when will HRC be arrested” without trying to force others to agree with me and without taking it personally when they don’t. (Yeah, I will agree to disagree on some things. No fag. as *someone* here would call me for saying “agree to disagree”.) I hope I will persuade people with my arguments and evidence, but I hope I will NOT browbeat them into going along with my view.
Q is trying to teach us to argue with facts and to entertain possibilities. But even Q is not the be-all, end-all authority on everything. We need to always think for ourselves. And isn’t that the point?