Posted on 08/11/2021 5:46:08 PM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1
You are on a mission here, troll.
I have no experience and very likely you have less.
Well that explains it perfectly.
Oh, but it is still "compelling" - and you are a Democrat, paid government deep state agent, stupid, etc. if you question the validity of it, even if it is just B-roll footage.
Where I come from what Lindell said was a lie.
There's a number of posters on this thread who have the same aim...
Agreed.
It’s one thing to raise doubt, but something quite different to express pleasure with the shortcomings and disappointment.
I’ve also noticed related attacks on the Q folks which is not only unnecessary, but also nasty. What’s the greatest sin the Q folks have committed — hope and optimism?
Deception and untruths are generally not a positive thing....and can lead to things like this:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3984286/posts
QAnon is a media fabrication, and for Comcast to exploit that invention it created makes sense.
Regarding Q & Anon, I have no interest — never participated. But I trust that any related Q commentary here on FR was moderated and deemed to be acceptable.
Never understood that argument...”Q” is supposedly anonymous right? (Although we know that there have been 2-3 “Q’s” based on writing style...most likely Fredrick Brennan then Jim Watkins and Ron Watkins). Therefore Q is “Q-ANON(ymous)” Conversely Q “followers” are mostly not “anon”-ymous, so it was confusing for the media/Comcast! ;-)
It was confusing to me as well — though, I was familiar with the anon & 4-chan (or 2-chan, 8-chan) terms from a while ago. I got the impression that Q was supposed to be some all-knowing insider, and the rest were simply groups of hackers and/or dark-web types.
My recreational imagination is pretty much committed to music where I truly disconnect from reality.
The original Q postings were while Q was an insider in the Trump campaign. Then right after the inauguration, there was a subtle but noticeable shift in the postings and that tells me that the person was out of the loop. A good guess would be in a position in an agency outside of the White House and the inner circle, or back to civilian life. Of course “Q” could have Flynn, since he was at the Q level while head of MIL Intel and also as NSA. It may not have been him typing at the keyboard but feeding info of what to post. He resigned a few weeks after the inauguration. So that timing matches the shift from what I’ll call Q period 1 to 2. Q2 - N were all just taking wild guesses that any political wonk could do. No real substance or intel. Anyone who kept following from Q2 on showed they had little to no discernment and really did earn the tag Qtard.
We yell & complain about “lack of transperancy” in these problem counties. We then can't go and pretend its OK with people like Dennis Montgomery (and maybe Lindell!) when they don't provide it. If we allow we are as dishonest as our enemies !
Extraordinary claims need to be validated by extraordinary evidence !
How many posts are you going to make today trying to attack Lindell’s symposium? What is your intent here? I’m pretty sure I know your intent and everyone needs to be wary of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you post or comments you make. You are not worthy of trust.
For update on the Montgomery issue, see this thread:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3984519/posts
It doesn’t really say anything.
Who’s Elizabeth Montgomery, besides the gal from the old TV show Bewitched ?
I did hear that Lindell was distancing himself from Dennis Montgomery. If so good. I do know he was once involved with Lindell. There are threads on FR from past February\March(maybe April) time frame that discuss that. Besides I know from other “outside” sources he was involved. If he’s not now then good.
I do think Lindell has “something”, likely important but not convincing to me yet. Particularly the international angle, I’ve spent 40 some years in the defense biz, I know how that stuff works. So far no one has given me a believable story on the packet captures. Maybe that’s by design, I’ll allow that for now.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence for validation. I haven’t seen that yet at least on the internet part.
And a lawyer assuring me of something. I seem to remember lawyers assuring us of many thing that “supposedly happened” that aren’t actually true. One lawyer who held a prominent position even told us that “is” isn’t always “is” !
I’ll just stand back and observe, check my own sources, cross reference and draw my own conclusions.
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.