Q - TRUST Adm R. He played the game to remain in control.

https://qcodefag.github.io/ ^ | Q

[RoosterRedux]

This entire shutdown exercise was Schumers attempt to put Trump in his place. He failed spectacularly.

Jan 22 2018 14:16:08 Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: f2d4bd 127256

>>127246

Thank you for visiting the WH. FEAR.

Q

580

Jan 22 2018 14:13:04

Q

!UW.yye1fxo ID: f2d4bd 127218

Private exchange [last].

Q

381

Jan 22 2018 14:05:49

Q

!UW.yye1fxo ID: f2d4bd

127154

:stay at home<

[-7]

DR_noon_clear_sky^

Safe comms_SAT-re_Bz985300^00

Q

Jan 21 2018

578

Jan 21 2018 22:32:11

Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: fe774d

121147

Every [3] letter is here.

You are in the middle of some

thing historic. Q

577

Jan 21 2018 22:20:15

Anonymous ID: c4d817

120926

GUYS- email was sent out by NSA before election with some plausible deniability attached to it so people could say "FAKE"! HOWEVER, the main audience wasn't normies, it was the black hats, a shot across the bow to say "WE HAVE IT ALL, YOUR'E RIGGING WON'T WORK". Q just brought it back up to speak directly to "THEM" again to show they are going to dump it all.

[bagster]

Sometimes you sound more Christian than I.

I take that as a compliment, madam.

[zzeeman]

To be honest, it's probably to be expected. Some, if not most of this, is SO corrupt, SO unlike anything we all thought was possible in this country, and SO far fetched sounding, that reasonable people have a hard time believing it. Even freepers who deep down have always known our government is corrupt.

A great deal of this is explained in KittenClaws' tagline: Normalcy Bias.

Normalcy Bias is an incredibly powerful force in human nature. And for many, the more intense and powerful the information being revealed is, the more powerful and intense the NB reaction is. When I think about people that I have known over the years, and myself, it seems that those of us that have been "red-pilled" in small doses over many, many years have an easier time accepting more doses (even powerful ones) as they come along.

[Fantasywriter]

Please reread my comment. I in no way said what you claim I said.

To recap. People with facts on their side argue the facts. *That is the point.* Once mire: when you have the facts, you argue facts.

When you DON’T have facts, then you make your case the way warmists do—by attacking deniers personally, by trying to silence them, via name-calling, etc. It’s a method precisely designed to insulate the party using it from actually having to argue the facts.

If you could just see what I’m saying, you could then agree or disagree. But it’s no use disagreeing with something I didn’t say. That gets us nowhere.

[bagster]

I used the term cult bc those who

You complain of being insulted and play the innocent. And out of the other side your mouth you call us "cultists". Do you have any idea how insulting you have been throughout this discussion? Maybe you don't.

This is just one recent example. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go search back and list all the other condescending, patronizing, belittling, insulting comments you have made regarding us cultists.

It grows tiresome. I personally have concluded that nothing will convince you, and I consider you a nuisance. I don't mind dealing with a nuisance.

I made a career out of it, in fact. If I thought that you were open to believing in my cult, I would encourage the most knowledgeable of my cult brothers and sisters to provide you with the answers you seek. I do not, therefore I will not. I have seen them try and fail. At this point, I recommend that you wander the desert for forty years seeking your own enlightenment. I promise you that the truth is there to find.

Like I said before. If one such as me can be convinced of this kookiness, then so can you. You and I are not so different, goodman.

[bagster]

I don't understand the term "normalcy bias".

Do you mind explaining exactly what it is in layman's terms please?

Bagster the layman.

[Fantasywriter]

You very neatly cut off my explanation for the use of that term. Why should I answer your above, ‘honest,’ question if you are not willing to deal honestly with the reasons I laid out?

People in a cult uncritically accept the behavior of their fellow members. They form a pack and attack anyone who questions their central beliefs. What really astonished me on this thread were the number of lies and smears that were directed at me. I was actually condemned to hell. You’d think a fellow Christian at some point would speak up and say enough is enough. People shouldn’t be damned to hell for questioning Q. But nothing like that ever happened bc no personal attack goes too far if it’s against an ‘outsider.’ Anything goes.

[bagster]

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. You seemed to be saying that you could determine truth by how a person argued their point. Of course I disagree with that.

But if you say that a person making an argument is doing so without referring to facts and ONLY using insults, personal attacks, ad hominems, etc. then I see what you are saying and I would agree that they are not making a good argument.

Which also doesn't prove or disprove a truth. If one person uses facts against a person with facts, it still doesn't prove the truth of fact guy's argument. It just proves that the no fact guy isn't making his case, even though the truth may be on his side.

And because I wrote all that so sloppily, I will restate for clarity. Both sides enter the argument but only one comes armed with the truth. The other with the non truth. It does not matter how or even if they prove their case. The truth remains the truth. Do you get what I'm saying>

So yea. I have to politely disagree with both versions of your statement. Truth lives alone and needs no defenders to remain the truth.

Did I mention that I'm a part time philosopher? I make up cool sayings all the time.

:)

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Did I mention that I’m a part time philosopher?” <<

LOLOLOLOLOL!

My wife has two degrees in philosophy, and she never makes up anything.

Which part of the time are you providing this service?
.

[zzeeman]

OK, two links:

The first one, a bit of a sterile, clinical definition: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/normalcy_bias

The second goes into a bit more of a practical description: http://thesurvivalmom.com/normalcy-bias/

In my own words: it is a phenomenon that causes a person to reflexively REJECT information that is extremely troubling, dangerous, and worrisome. Rather than carefully analyze and attempt to develop a proper context for such information, an easier path is to just reject it out of hand!

Examples: "That can't be true, government would never allow it..." or "This is America, that can never happen here..."

[bagster]

Why should I answer your above, ‘honest,’ question if you are not willing to deal honestly with the reasons I laid out?

To prove you're the bigger man? To play to the audience? That's how I would do it. but I reject your premise. I dealt quite honestly with your comment, or so I thought. I am quite possibly the most honest man you've ever cyber met. Let me just clear that up.

I was actually condemned to hell.

Heh. I actually missed that post. I missed quite a few. I was on it, then forgot all about it, then came back on it. Anyway, I don't think anybody posting on here can actually condemn you to hell. I remember seeing somebody say asked for proof of God and you totally overreacting to make a point, trying to win public opinion to your side. That was a cute one. Maybe somebody WISHED you would go to hell. I don't think you have to worry about there wishes.

Yea I get what a cult it. That's why in consider it an insult. I don't feel like a cult member. I don't wanna be a cult member. Maybe there is a fine line between a group of like minded people banding together seeking to share information and working toward a common goal.

By your definition, FreeRepublic is a cult. Right? Be honest.

I think we are all freepers. All brother and sisters with basically the same goals. To you then, is this a cult within a cult? We live within America. Is America a cult? Let's take it a step further. Is Earth a cult? How do we earthlings feel about outsiders?

I digress. Anyway. Please don't call me a cultist and I wont call you a troll. I despise that term. You have your reasons for going far beyond asking questions into the realm of disruption. What they are, is your secret. Not important. I have you categorized as a nuisance.

I will not try to convince you. But I really cant believe you don't believe this stuff is real. It so simply is to me. Oh well. I'm enjoying our discourse so continue if you like.

[Fantasywriter]

I’ll try once more.

First, both sides of an argument can’t be right. They can both be wrong, but they can’t both be right.

I like the warmest illustration so I’ll stick with it. The ‘denier,’ side of the global warming argument want, and have wanted all along, two things. First, they’d like a major public forum in which to lay out their FACTS. The other side gets most of the exposure. Very little public attention is paid to the facts on the side of the ‘deniers.’ All they ask is to be allowed to make their case to the public. They are confident the facts will then speak for themselves.

Secondly, ‘deniers,’ want a fair debate. They have been challenging prominent warmists for many years to a public debate. The ‘deniers,’ are confident that with fair rules, they could mop the floor with any of the prominent warmists.

The warmists do NOT want a fair debate. They want the status quo to continue, which allows them to say whatever serves their purpose *without without a challenge.* Most of all they want the deniers to be silenced. Only when they alone are allowed to make their case does it appear to stand. If honest, public challenges were allowed, their case would collapse.

In short, the deniers desperately want to put the facts before the public, while the warmists just want the deniers to be silenced. Yes, you CAN tell from these two approaches which one has the facts. It’s very simple, really. When your position depends on silencing anyone who questions it, it’s bogus.

[bagster]

Which part of the time are you providing this service?

It's hit or miss, editor. Comes and goes as necessary.

And it's a poor philosopher who can't make up their own material.

:)

[Envisioning]

For later.....

[Fantasywriter]

How would you react if someone posted in a public forum that you had DEMANDED proof of God—when you had never said anything remotely like that, ever.

Seriously, how would you approach that scenario? Would you be perfectly happy to be wholesale lied about in public, even when the lie concerned God Himself?

I’m sincerely curious.

[bagster]

I’ll try once more.

Please don't give up on me, Fantasywriter. You still might win. Keep trying.

Yes, you CAN tell from these two approaches which one has the facts. It’s very simple, really. When your position depends on silencing anyone who questions it, it’s bogus.

No, No, a trillion times no. How do you not get this.

You are right in one small part. It IS very simple. Let me be veryu precise. You use climate change, so I will also.

There is the truth. The climate is either changing or it is not. The truth is, that it is. It always has and always will. The real question is does man made activity affect climate change. It does not. There. That is the unalterable truth.

No amount of argument, ad campaigns, public exposure, silencing of opposition, mockery, or any other means of unfair argument can change the truth.

Many years ago, all people thought the earth was flat. Then some said it was round. They argued. They silenced, they mocked, etc. All the while, and forever before, the earth was not flat. The truth was always the truth. And so it goes with every disagreement.

Do you see my point? All your talk of climate change does nothing for your argument. You are still trying to make the manner of argument evidence of the truth. That is false.

You lose. I win.

We can continue if you like. I'm having fun.

[JockoManning]

Just be sure to remember that

wet birds fly at night.

[bagster]

To be honest, Fantasywriter. I knew exactly how that guy meant it when he said it. I guess since it wasn't directed at me I could look at it without bias. He meant it, like he later explained, allegorically.

Had I been you? I may have reacted as you did. Falsely. You don't seem a stupid man. I postulate that you DID know how he meant it and reacted as you did on purpose, knowing full well what you were doing. It was a strategy to turn the tables on your oppressors and sway public opinion your way. That is my honest answer to your question. With all due respect.

If I am wrong. Then you are not as smart as you appear to be. I will accept that.

[bagster]

Wha wha whaaaat???

[bagster]

I have another theory about you fantasywriter. You love to qrgue.

You and I have that in common, goodman.

:)

[bagster]

wet birds fly at night.

Upon further review. I don't think they do. I could be wrong.