Q Drops #674 through #679 from February 7, 2018

QCodefag.github.io ^ | February 7, 2018 | Q and Anonymous

[Swordmaker]

# 679 Feb 7 2018 16:40:33 Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: baa9d4 298274

BF865568-AABA-4354-A7C6-18….png

:We see you (live).
Q

----------------

678 Feb 7 2018 16:25:34 Anonymous ID: 0110e1 298086
>>297666

Martha M on Fox just said that Nancy must have felt betrayed by Chuck because he gave in on the government shutdown regarding DACA!!!

Feb 7 2018 16:29:09 Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: eb3537 298134 >>298086

Thank you for visiting the WH.
Q

--------------

677 Feb 7 2018 15:57:55 Anonymous ID: 6e2676 297717 >>297686

>>297709

military target square?
Feb 7 2018 16:17:01
Q

!UW.yye1fxo ID: eb3537 297951 >>297717
Kill box.
Q

-------------

#676 Feb 7 2018 15:55:33 Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 647c68 297686

You have so much more than you know.
SO MUCH!
Future proves past.
News unlocks map.
=
+
++
+++
RED OCTOBER.
IRON EAGLE.
[]
Q

-----------------

#675 Feb 7 2018 15:37:48 Anonymous ID: 02c7a0 297521

DJT.png

This is pure speculation and probably just fitting things in places, but….From the latest trump tweet, just taking the first 3 Letters of the capital letters I come up with

[[ TBA - MIS - MAG - RDB ]]

TBA = To Be Announced

MIS = Management Information System

Management Information Systems are typically organized around the functional areas of an organization. Learn about some of the most common applications of Management Information Systems.
MAG = Make America Great

RDB = Relation Database Management

RDB is a fast, portable, relational database management system without arbitrary limits, other than memory and processor speed) that runs under, and interacts with, the UNIX Operating system.

=============================================

Is Q/Pres going to use a MIS to MAG with compents from a RDB aka coded leaks to or from the NSA/WIKI soon to blow EVERYTHING wide open and show us the LIGHT?

Feb 7 2018 15:42:08 Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 647c68 297553

>>297521
No.
Re_read crumbs re: CS WH submission.
CS & NP divided.
Coincidence?
The ART of illusion.
Q

-------------------

#674 Feb 7 2018 15:30:44 Anonymous ID: da6423 297464

Screenshot_20180207-172345.jpg

Screenshot_20180207-172418.jpg

Screenshot_20180207-172449.jpg

Screenshot_20180207-172634.jpg

Screenshot_20180207-172656.jpg

>>297354 Barlow was sometimes held up as a straw man for a kind of naive techno-utopianism that believed that the Internet could solve all of humanity's problems without causing any more. As someone who spent the past 27 years working with him at EFF, I can say that nothing could be further from the truth. Barlow knew that new technology could create and empower evil as much as it could create and empower good. He made a conscious decision to focus on the latter: "I knew it’s also true that a good way to invent the future is to predict it. So I predicted Utopia, hoping to give Liberty a running start before the laws of Moore and Metcalfe delivered up what Ed Snowden now correctly calls 'turn-key totalitarianism.'”

Barlow’s lasting legacy is that he devoted his life to making the Internet into “a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth . . . a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.”

In the days and weeks to come, we will be talking and writing more about what a extraordinary role Barlow played for the Internet and the world. And as always, we will continue the work to fulfill his dream.

Source: https:// www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/john-perry-barlow-internet-pioneer-1947-2018

Feb 7 2018 15:39:32 Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 647c68 297530
>>297464 Heart attacks can be deadly. Q

[JockoManning]

Can you perhaps imagine why Q-Anon might have used that bit of hyperbole?

imho, he was saying in an 'in your face' sort of way--hey, folks, POTUS is the good guy--help us out here.

[LS]

I just don’t waste time with Q.

[magglepuss]

Look, I don’t post much on these q threads, but I read them all. Specifically, I seek them out. I find these threads fascinating. These threads are put up to try to unlock what Q is saying. You come on here and want to have a totally different conversation. If you want to do the whole, I doubt Q is real, then start your own thread! It is like trying to watch a movie with someone who wants to talk through the whole thing. Respectfully, I really do enjoy these threads, and you are taking some of that joy away with your constant interruptions.

[Fantasywriter]

I would never trust anyone enough to give them a pass for calling a mere mortal—a sinner like every one of the rest of us with the exception of Jesus—”our savior”. I just couldn’t/can’t do it. There is only one savior in my life, and his name isn’t Trump.

[Fantasywriter]

The Q threads should be reclassified as Caucus. That is obvious.

[magglepuss]

NO, then I would never have found them. There is just something really off about your constant interruptions. Either you have some of the worst social skills I have seen, or something else is going on. Please, stop coming to the q discussion threads, and start your own “is q real” thread.

[JockoManning]

Then to be consistent—though I share your aversion to that example—you would have to 100% forever avoid hyperbole in all your communications. Do you reach that level of perfection?

[JockoManning]

YOU
REALLY
DO
have the
CAPACITY
to
treat
the
Q-Anon
threads
AS THOUGH
they
were/are
CAUCUS THREADS
every time
you see them
and feel
such a fierce
compulsion
to throw
contrarian
rocks
at
them
...
You
COULD
consider
your
SCROLL
&
PAGE DOWN
buttons
as
YOUR
CAUCUS
BUTTONS
!

[Fantasywriter]

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7ls1ku/i_think_qanon_could_be_alex_jones/

[Fantasywriter]

I’ve explained my motives several times. They’re nothing like the motives that are ascribed to me.

[JockoManning]

Perhaps you could help us Jr Christians understand

how

your treatment of the Q-Anon affirmers and the Q-Anon threads fulfills Christ's orders to

DO UNTO OTHERS
as
YOU'D
have
THEM
DO
unto
YOU
???

[Fantasywriter]

Or perhaps you could start your own site with its own rules. There you could tell people which threads they could and couldn’t post on, and they would have to obey.

[JockoManning]

Somehow, I have a hard time conceptualizing what your motives are out of all your posts. Evidently, I missed them every time. No doubt my error. But I don't recall discerning or noticing your motives in those sentences.

Maybe your aversions, hostilities toward the Q-Anon posters overmuch overshadowed your motives?

Or maybe what you were asserting as your motives did not come across as really congruent evidence of true motives?

[Fantasywriter]

To be consistent, all I need to do is fundamentally question *anyone* who refers to a sinful human as our savior.

[Fantasywriter]

I abstain from name-calling, slurs, smears, ad hominem, lies and abscribing the worst possible motives to others. I’d be very happy if those who call themselves Christians would do the same in return

[Fantasywriter]

‘Maybe your aversions, hostilities toward the Q-Anon posters overmuch overshadowed your motives?’

I don’t have aversions or hostilities toward Q-believers. I do, however, get accused of many things for which no evidence is offered. [I.e.: if I were name-calling or insulting Q-believers, those quotes could be cut and pasted and used as evidence. But I don’t name-call or insult. I attempt to have rational, factual discussions.]

[JockoManning]

I noted one case where you were a bit insulting to 'Q believers.'

I realize that like beauty, insult can be int he eye (& psychology) of the beholder. Nevertheless ...

And the DO UNTO OTHERS bit?

[JockoManning]

I don’t have aversions or hostilities toward Q-believers.

I can appreciate that that is your intention and your perspective.

I suspect a poll of such Q-believers would indicate that you come across otherwise.

A very Christian value is to examine ourselves according to our impact vs our intentions.

[Fantasywriter]

My perception is that Q-believers take offense and attack at the least suggestion of disbelief. I’m stymied by the double standard here. If you look at the things that have been said to and about me, many are just awful. Yet only once that I’m aware of was anyone called on it. With me, if I convey my honest perception that Q-believers take offense very easily, it’s called out as an insult?

Whatever the standard, it should apply to both sides. That would genuinely be for the benefit of all.

I saw this on a reddit Q discussion. It claims to be a list of Q questions with some of them answered. Might be interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7b9e7d/all_of_qanons_questions_single_pdf_with_a_lot_of/

[magglepuss]

But I don’t name-call or insult. I attempt to have rational, factual discussions.]

---

You just insulted me! I sincerely asked you to stop with the off topic posts because they were really annoying to those of us who love to try to dissect q posts. I even offered a solution that you could start a thread of your own about q and if he/she is real. You basically said that you don’t care how annoying you are to the rest of us. You responded that I should start my own website where I can make the rules and make others obey. I don’t think it is too much to ask that you stop going off topic on all these threads. Have you ever thought that that is why some posters are not very kind to you?