Luke: Don’t hit me anymore...Oh God, I pray to God you don’t hit me anymore. I’ll do anything you say, but I can’t take anymore.
Boss Paul: You got your mind right, Luke?
Luke: Yeah. I got it right. I got it right, boss. [He grips the ankles of the guard]
Boss Paul: Suppose you’s back-slide on us?
Luke: Oh no I won’t. I won’t, boss.
Boss Paul: Suppose you’s to back-sass?
Luke: No I won’t. I won’t. I got my mind right.
Boss Paul: You try to run again, we gonna kill ya.
Luke: I won’t, I won’t, boss.

Dragline: “Don’t hit me, Boss. Don’t hit me. I’ll do whatever you say. Only don’t hit me.” You’re an original, that’s what you are. Them mullet-heads didn’t even know you was foolin’.
Luke: Foolin’ ‘em, huh? You can’t fool ‘em about somethin’ like that. They broke me. But they didn’t get my mind right. Not with no stick, no, sir.
Dragline: Aw. All that time, you was plannin’ on runnin’ again.
Luke: I never planned anything in my life.

941 posted on 12/16/2018 8:44:50 AM PST by ichabod1 (He's a vindictive SOB but he's *our* vindictive SOB.)

to force the bad guys to respond ...to “slip up” so to speak. You can sometimes get info by what a target may choose to respond to, how they respond to, or what they don’t respond to, in terms of questions, comments, and damaging assertions.

Q has said just that more than once.

I'd look it up and post it to you, but....lazy.

😉

Bagster

942 posted on 12/16/2018 9:08:00 AM PST by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)

I think it could very well be over 188. Although on the other hand, I doubt he even lifts.

943 posted on 12/16/2018 9:15:39 AM PST by reasonisfaith (What are the implications if the Resurrection of Christ is a true event in history?)

AND, that's why that'S my favorite movie OF ALL TIMES!

#Shakin' it here, boss

Bagster

944 posted on 12/16/2018 9:17:06 AM PST by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)

To: reasonisfaith

Bro. There's no way he lifts.

🤣

Bagster

945 posted on 12/16/2018 9:18:22 AM PST by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)

>> ommitted to the fact that the envelopes contained a picture or a short symbol or single word due to the reaction time of Jeb! For example, NXIVM.

Agree. Great observation. NXIVM is a good example, but I’m inclined to think that’s not it because I don’t think that could strike sufficient fear to account for the reaction. Even if Jeb was involved in NXIVM, the single word in an envelope doesn’t seem like enough to provoke his reaction.

So what would? A picture of GHWB being executed? (Not saying that’s it either or that it happened. Just saying that might provoke such a reaction.) A picture of someone in the act of molesting a child? If that were the case, then who could it be that would make Laura show it to Jeb and Jeb react as he did. If it were Jeb himself, maybe. Or GHWB. Maybe even if it were HRC, because the scene would be that repulsive and disgusting that it wouldn’t have to be Jeb himself.

Anyway, ez, I think you’re on the right track.

946 posted on 12/16/2018 9:37:37 AM PST by generally ( Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)

Lol!

I see you got sprung!

:-)

947 posted on 12/16/2018 10:21:21 AM PST by pax_et_bonum (Never Forget the SEALs of Extortion 17 - and God Bless The USA and President Trump.)

We could put the ‘Q’ threads in the ‘Religion’ forum and make them ‘Caucus’ threads if that would make the Qult happy.

948 posted on 12/16/2018 11:17:11 AM PST by Admin Moderator

... my favorite movie OF ALL TIMES!

949 posted on 12/16/2018 11:25:41 AM PST by amorphous

To: Admin Moderator

Why do you call it a Qult? Why are you hostile to the researchers here? If you aren’t sold on Q, that’s fine, but there seems to be something to it and it causes some good research.

950 posted on 12/16/2018 11:31:02 AM PST by MileHi (Liberalism is an ideology of parasites, hypocrites, grievance mongers, victims, and control freaks.)

To: Admin Moderator

I'd be the first one voted off the island, if that were the case.

Speaking only for myself, of course. :)

951 posted on 12/16/2018 11:38:53 AM PST by amorphous

LOL!

Looks like they are going to have to bring in the Spanish Inquisition.

952 posted on 12/16/2018 12:29:11 PM PST by Defiant (I may be deplorable, but I'm not getting in that basket.)

Some minds just can’t be made right. I think they are dealing with one of those.

953 posted on 12/16/2018 12:33:08 PM PST by Defiant (I may be deplorable, but I'm not getting in that basket.)

To: Admin Moderator

We could put the ‘Q’ threads in the ‘Religion’ forum and make them ‘Caucus’ threads if that would make the Qult happy.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As a Christian, I find this comment extremely offensive, Admin Moderator.

954 posted on 12/16/2018 4:09:47 PM PST by Disestablishmentarian

To: Admin Moderator; ransomnote; bagster; TEXOKIE; All

An interesting question. A caucus thread for Q-Anon in the Religion forum.

If too many have too much of an allergy for the religion forum--why not merely a "philosophical caucus" or "social caucus" thread--maybe in a larger, more general TRUMP Forum or Chat or whatever such.

Seems to me we need something that's easy to exclude obvious, truly obnoxious and prickly, mean etc. trolls from while allowing reasonable good attitude inquiry. And, in the process of those boundaries, making it easier for the mods to enforce the boundaries.

I think the shining light Religion Moderator of years ago made her job manageable by defining what was acceptable and what was not in moderately specific terms.

Personal attacks were not allowed and were much more enforced than in the general forum.

Attacks on a known population group were not allowed, IIRC. i.e. Pentecostals could not attack 'All FR RC's.' And FR RC's could not attack 'All FR Pentecostals." It was tolerable--particularly in temperate language--to find fault with "many" or "most" undefined populations of Pentecostals or RC's around the world.

I wonder if a standard could be defined and supported whereby genuine earnest information seeking questions could be responded to 2-4 times. After that, the seeker could be expected to consult Swordmaker's LexiQon; ransomnote's intro links, Praying Medic's videos etc.

And if a questioner PERSISTED in being 'by the throat demanding' of answers according to THEIR criteria in any perceived degree of obnoxiousness, they could be banned from the thread.

Similarly, Q fans would need to avoid provoking, poking etc. at the perceived assaultive trolls.

It seems to me that there is a particular sort of personality--OCD, RAD ridden, fiercely allergic to or a paranoia about a false positive error; rigid, narrow, prickly, demanding, control freak etc. that SIMPLY DEMANDS that others conform to THEIR constructions on reality or suffer the vengeance of relentless assaults & demands from them.

The Q threads don't need that sort of intrusion and disruption. And, frankly, I don't think FR in general needs such pig poo.

I think the Q fans are among the MOST conservative, loyal, supportive, diligent, bright, collaborative, effective brainstormers etc. of FREEPERS available. We support TRUMP fiercely and FR energetically.

On the other hand, we feel being relentlessly assaulted, insulted, marginalized, demeaned, accused, etc. extremely keenly. And many are increasingly of a mood to take their marbles and go home whether banned, or not. That's sad and unnecessary, imho.

I guess, to me, it boils down to one of 2 basic options:

1. A defined category of thread more or less equal to a caucus thread--within what forum may not matter to most; might to some.

2. A FAITHFULLY and diligently APPLIED criteria on the mods part that would prevent such intensely obnoxious, disgusting, fight provoking etc. attacks by obvious trolls.

It seemed to me that the RM of yore would periodically have to train newbies or retrain forgetful folks who were hell-bent on being disruptive in the religion forum. That would likely continue to be true about trolls & the Q threads, too.

I do STRONGLY ENCOURAGE y'all to come up with SOME effective solution. This is tooooo disruptive to FR and to precious FREEPERS who contribute content and/or money to the betterment of FR. We don't deserve such trashy treatment and increasingly--many will simply no longer put up with it.

Besides that, as many of us see it, when TRUMP eventually confirms that the Q-team of mostly military intelligence folks have been working CLOSELY WITH TRUMP low these many months--if FR admin is still SEEN AS BEING on the side of the assaultive trolls--then FR and the admin will look at best extremely foolish if not DESTRUCTIVE to TRUMP, his efforts and goals. You don't need to go there. I hope you won't.

955 posted on 12/16/2018 4:29:50 PM PST by JockoManning (http://www.zazzle.com/brain_truth for hats T's e.g. STAY CALM & DO THE NEXT LOVING THING)

To: JockoManning; Admin Moderator; ransomnote; bagster

PERHAPS it would help to identify 3-4 mods who were either quite seriously neutral about Q or somewhat kindly open to Q to police the forum.

Whether it is accurate, or not, many Q-pers believe that some mods are as hostile to Q as some of the trolls. That does NOT HELP FR.

956 posted on 12/16/2018 4:34:28 PM PST by JockoManning (http://www.zazzle.com/brain_truth for hats T's e.g. STAY CALM & DO THE NEXT LOVING THING)

To: Admin Moderator

We could put the ‘Q’ threads in the ‘Religion’ forum and make them ‘Caucus’ threads if that would make the Qult happy.

No, ma'am. With all due respect, I don't think it would make anybody happy. Well, maybe the people that hate us for what we think.

And we are not a cult or a Qult.

At least I haven't seen any hooded robes yet.

Apreesh the input.

Feel free to partake in the discussion further, if you are so inclined. After all, you can do anything you want.

With all due respect.

😃

Bagster

957 posted on 12/16/2018 4:41:54 PM PST by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)

958 posted on 12/16/2018 4:42:28 PM PST by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)

Some minds just can’t be made right. I think they are dealing with one of those.

"Sometimes you just a get a feeling for a child".

~~ Lukes Ma

Bagster

959 posted on 12/16/2018 4:45:18 PM PST by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)

To: JockoManning

PERHAPS it would help to identify 3-4 mods who were either quite seriously neutral about Q or somewhat kindly open to Q to police the forum.
Whether it is accurate, or not, many Q-pers believe that some mods are as hostile to Q as some of the trolls. That does NOT HELP FR.
_____________________________

I don’t want to get involved in telling FR how to do what they do. I see that you pinged them, but I suspect the Mods have heard enough from this thread for the day. Just a guess....

960 posted on 12/16/2018 4:49:11 PM PST by ransomnote (IN GOD WE TRUST)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794