Posted on 01/25/2018 8:46:49 AM PST by MNDude
Here's a clue, kid.
When disputing a topic, you need more than your second unsubstantiated assertion in your own favor, to prove that you have verified your first unsubstantiated assertion.
Are you bright enough to follow that sentence, or do I need to parse it for you?
Name-calling in a debate is called Ad Hominem (Personal Attack). The first person to use it automatically forfeits the debate.
Just because someone ignores or doesn’t respond in the vein you want does not mean they’re trolling, they’re choosing not to respond at that juncture in the way you might prefer that they do....so I stand on the following already stated....
.....”Are you that ‘unsure’ your view/position ‘can prevail’ in the open market place of opinions that you resort to calling people ‘trolls’ who disagree with you?”....obviously it didn’t.
Evidently you have no idea how to validate Q posts. It only takes a matter of seconds if you know how to do it.
All three of the posts I cited are verified in the primary source as being Q’s. You were entirely wrong about their inauthenticity.
These are things you should have known to begin with. If you don’t know how to verify a Q post, you need to learn ASAP.
The real world is where assertions are backed up with evidence, not rumors, innuendos, logical fallacies and other roadblocks against critical thinking.
+1
Thank you, Jeb, for your considered insight into the matter.
It doesn't work like that in the real world.
And trolls forfeit the presumption of innocence, and the courtesy of being taken in good faith.
Just because someone ignores or doesn’t respond in the vein you want does not mean they’re trolling, they’re choosing not to respond at that juncture in the way you might prefer that they do....so I stand on the following already stated....
No, but someone lying, after being repeatedly called on, *is* trolling.
.....”Are you that ‘unsure’ your view/position ‘can prevail’ in the open market place of opinions that you resort to calling people ‘trolls’ who disagree with you?”....obviously it didn’t.
See the prior question. Fantasywriter lied, got caught on it, and the pulled the whole 'point and shriek' and called in fellow flying monkeys for reinforcement.
But keep it up, it's a whole week until the Super Bowl.
And I'm probably boycotting that anyway.
You obviously don't visit there very often. SJWs always *project*.
Dr. Pieczenik: Trump Has Officially Destroyed the Deep State (Part 1)
Dr. Pieczenik: Trump Has Officially Destroyed the Deep State (Part 2)
Dr. Pieczenik: Trump Has Officially Destroyed the Deep State (Part 3)
.
Sad.
Sad for you, that is.
.
Sorry for the commercials!
Sad for you, that is.
Sorry, your attempt at channeling The Donald needs work.
Probably because he's a successful billionaire married to a supermodel in real life, and is now President, and you're not.
I am sincerely sad for you.
Blessings.
You should have *started* with that one.
I started by praying for you.
I like to keep tabs on what Q is saying and I get a kick out of his cypher coding style but I neither buy into it or reject it out of hand.
Even if events play out where the Deep State is taken down, it will still be uncertain whether Q was a prophet or if he was riding the wave of what many of us thought might happen anyhow.
So Q may always be a mystery. Many, many years ago, back when I wore short pants and drove a tricycle around the block in dress shoes and white socks, a band called ? and The Mysterians had a hit with "96 Tears."
Many at the time swore that the voice in the song was that of Mick Jagger and despite the fact that some guy named Rodriguez came forward as Question Mark, there were those who never moved away from the fact that Mick Jagger was the studio vocalist.
Over 50 years later, we are still debating who Question Mark really was and so 50 years from now, I will be sitting in some futuristic bar, over 100 years old, hopefully, clutching my beer and telling some whippersnappers about the days of Q.
Q? I have no idea what that is.
Don't bother with me. Pray for the President's success in uprooting the Deep State. And our country's protection and restoration.
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.