Posted on 05/03/2018 8:06:25 PM PDT by Beave Meister
This is just my take on the entire Q Anon situation. I attempt to break down what Q Anon is, who created and who took it over.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Yes, thanks, as I have said I am completely pro-Trump pro-MAGA. My concerns about “Q” have to do not with goals but methods. Dishonest and inept methods are not the way to pursue worthy MAGA goals.
‘I will say that there seem to be plenty of good, well-intentioned pro-MAGA folks there, from what I have seen.’
I wonder. If there were even one decent person affiliated with Q, when people like Edzo4 go completely overboard with their sadism and vulgarity, wouldn’t the decent person intervene? I have seen the saying cited among them, All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Doing nothing in the face of malicious vulgarity is what many Qers excell at. Among the others, perpetrating the vicious nastiness is the forte.
Enchante to bagster; edzo4
I say Q is an amateur and a clown.
Enchante to kevao
it won’t win you any friends in the Q-cult!
Enchante to eyedigress
I have been so reviled by the Q-cult
Enchante to:
Or are you both as ignorant as Q?
Enchante to
upset your silly Q-cult. Stay in your little Q-bubble.
To: bagster
Well I truly would be thrilled if all/most of the Q stuff
turns out to be real.
664 posted on 5/5/2018, 6:47:12 PM by Enchante
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3652490/posts?page=664#664
boo hoo you come come to the Q threads with the sole intent of causing problems and attacking, people and calling them stupid and you’re offended when they fight back
go wallow in your own self pity you useless troll
More lies.
That is all perfectly consistent, although not for your feeble brain. I dislike what I call the “Q-cult”... people who blindly believe that Q is what he pretends to be and is the One True Oracle for a powerful winning movement to ensure the success of MAGA.
I would indeed be “thrilled” if all/most claims about organized opposition to the Deep State proved to be true, and if there really were MAGA control of all the various players such as Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller, et al.
irrational cult = bad
rational MAGA = good
Sometimes it really is simple, even if your mind can’t comprehend it.
You don’t actually understand anything about my “intent” (you don’t understand much at all, as your prove continually).
My “intent” in any discussion about “Q” is to try to get people to think.
True, a proper test for whether Q followers are sincerely pro-MAGA and pro-decency will be whether they repudiate trolls like “edzo4” who cause so much damage to the reputations of Q followers. He is a great embarrassment to all of them.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
From a Q-thread post:
‘Horowitz report of FBI exoneration of Hillary will be out by mid-June at the latest, more likely beofre June.’
Bol! It was January, then February, then March, then April for sure.
Then May for double certain sure.
Now...June maybe.
Meanwhile, Sessions and Wray are doing everything they can to delay, delay, delay.
Hmm. Looks like a pattern.
‘True, a proper test for whether Q followers are sincerely pro-MAGA and pro-decency will be whether they repudiate trolls like “edzo4” who cause so much damage to the reputations of Q followers. He is a great embarrassment to all of them.’
Exactly. The nastiest of the Qers have turned FR into a hatefest of sewage, and a for their compatriots—silence is consent.
a for = as for
[Because Qers haven’t got the intelligence to recognize a typo when one occurs.]
This will be my only reply to you.
You are exhibiting precisely the same behavior, including the crazed personal attacks, that you exhibited on the Zero/0bola research threads, causing great disruption.
There’s a name for this behavior.
Psychopathy.
The only “disruption” I have seen around here is “edzo4” doing repetitive abusive trolling.
You are lying like a rug. You and your crazed ‘Malcolm X has been PROVEN to be Obama’s father,’ lynch mob ganged up on and viciously attacked ANYONE who had a different POV. You, who had ***claimed*** to be a friend, exceeded many of the others with your vitriol. From which I derived the following conclusion: Hiduism espouses betrayal and unbridled savagery.
Say anything you like. I was there. I lived it. You and your fellow ‘Malcolm X has been PROVEN to be Obama’s father,’ cultists behaved like a pack of rabid hyenas. It was shameful.
edzo4, the PLAGIARIST who can’t even write a paragraph without copying Wikipedia and lying about it.
btw, when you are going to use a source verbatim the honest policy is to show you are QUOTING from a source, not using your own words. Your comment gives the false impression that YOU have described the Gleiwitz incident, when in fact you have appropriated the WIKIPEDIA description verbatim. This is called plagiarism. This is dishonest on your part. You should have set the passage off in quotes and italics, with a link to the WIKIPEDIA passage you are using:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.