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]

wet birds fly at night.

Wait a minute. Am I the bird in this scenario?

[Fantasywriter]

You 100% missed my point again. We are talking completely past each other. This could last a month and go nowhere.

I’m out, but just for the record, I never mentioned climate change. Global warming is the modern day name of the theory of man-made global warming. Warmist is another term for the same theory. It has nothing to do with climate change. It is about the alleged anthropomorphic cause of warming.

[JockoManning]

Qx's Dissertation Chairman did his own dissertation using nonsense phrases. That was one of his phrases.

Gottcha ... at least almost.

[Fantasywriter]

No idea—zero—what the rest of the post said. I read the words, “fantasywriter demands proof of the existence of God,” and stopped right there. No, I will not go back and read the rest. I already read more of that post than I needed or wanted to.

Here’s a word of advice for anyone who might still be reading this thread. If you want me to read your comment, don’t begin your first sentence with a blatant, wholesale profoundly offensive lie about me—and whatever you do, don’t involve God in the lie. I’ll read a lot of things, but I won’t read that, ever, period.

[bagster]

Yea, I get all that.

My point remains. For the sake of argument. "Climate change" is real or it is not. All of what I said still applies. We are discussing truth and how it is proved, not climate change itself. Focusing on the details of "climate change" does nothing for your argument.

Your argument was that you could discern the truth from the way people argued their case. You used the "climate change" argument as your example.

If we can discuss this point for months and still not agree, then I must conclude you are not intellectually honest. Had you proven your case, I would have conceded your point. I am honest like that.

I love to argue. And I love the truth. I will accept it when I see it.

Thank you for indulging me for as long as you did, goodman. I will chalk you up in my argument book as an entertaining win. You lasted longer than most, goodman. I'll argue with you anytime.

Good day to you.

[bagster]

Haha. Define gotcha.

[MEG33]

LOL!!

[bagster]

Take my and the poster's word for it then. He did not mean literally that you demanded proof of God. That would indeed be a lie. I didn't see you do that.

I got your back on that one. The poster will agree that you did not say that. I guarantee it.

This is a non issue. You should stop trying to make it one. Your outrage is noted.

[bagster]

So fantasy. Have I convinced you that Q is real?

I would love for you to join the cult. I warn you though, the initiation is rough.

:)

[JockoManning]

triggered your thinking.

[bagster]

Thank you so much for taking the time. That's a very good term to know.

:)

[bagster]

That was easy. Everything triggers my thinking.

That's why Q intrigues me. Thinking is good, neh?

[Fantasywriter]

‘This is a non issue. You should stop trying to make it one.’

If I read a lie that started out, ‘fantasywriter demands proof of the Loch Ness Monster,’ that would be a non-issue. Drag God into it, and it’s not a non-issue for me.

[Fantasywriter]

Try this. Why have man-made global warming deniers been begging—BEGGING—for ~2 decades, for a public debate with one of the big honchos of the man-made global warming scam? Why has no prominent figure on the man-made global warming side accepted the debate challenge? Why, instead, have the warmists run scared from such a forum as if their very lives depend on avoiding it???

[bagster]

Because they can't have their fraud exposed. All they have to do is debate Lord Monkton (sp?) on the subject. He's the best I've seen.

We all know the truth.

[bagster]

I'm a hundred percent with you on "climate change" and "global warming."

But that was not the issue. Right?

[bagster]

p.s. I would pay good money to watch Algore debate lord Monkton. The slaughter would be glorious.

If you haven't heard Lord Monkton speak on this, I highly recommend it. He's on youtube.

[Fantasywriter]

Exactly. The man-made global warming side cannot agree to a fair public debate forum bc it would expose their fraud.

Now let’s say I don’t know the facts. All I know is the two sides’ different approaches. The Lord Monkton side wants a public debate the worst way. The so-called deniers are gung-ho to lay the facts out before the public;they will debate anytime, anywhere, just bring it on.

The Al Gore/warmist side is running scared. They are willing to name-call and insult the other side, but *nothing* will induce them to debate them in public. In fact, they float the idea of reeducation camps for deniers...and they’re not joking.

I can only speak for myself, but I’m capable of drawing certain conclusions from this disparate behavior. I’ve seen it before. I know what it means.

Ymmv.

[Fantasywriter]

As the owner of this site so eloquently put it, we’d all love to believe Q is the real deal. Who wouldn’t want a genuine voice on the inside, giving us singular insights and urging us to pray.

But we all have to reconcile what we’d like to be true with reality. Take those early Q posts I quoted. There was no cutesy vagueness or cryptic obfuscation. Q told us straight up the day and nearly the hour when Hillary would be arrested, as well as the days on which Podesta and Huma would be indicted. Along with the direct quotes, I linked to a discussion thread. Everyone agreed. If these predictions materialized, Q was exactly who he claimed. If nothing happened, he was a larper.

Nothing happened. No, it’s not possible to actually arrest a person like Hillary with ***nobody*** knowing about it. It’s psychotic to believe that. Nor does the secret Podesta indictment theory hold up. People are indicted for a reason. If Podesta was indicted on 3 Nov, by now we would know about it. Something like that cannot be kept a total secret month after month—and anyway that’s not the point of an indictment. An indictment is the first step, not an end in itself.

Amazingly, after the spectacular failure of his first three predictions, Q offered no explanation. He just took refuge in increasing vagueness, and in the breathless demand for more nothingburger predictions.

Occum’s razor says it’s a larper. Those first three predictions were huge. They were designed to create a buzz. They were the work of a person whose goal was to get hits and get talked about. It worked.

If Q were what he claims, he’d have attempted *some* explanation of the failure of those predictions. Integrity would have required it. But the fact that Q just went straight on into less specific, more cryptic messages belies integrity. It’s exactly what a larper would do—but it’s not at all what an honest person who *just happened* to be sensationally wrong—and who, as a result, *unintentionally* misled his readers three times in a row—would do. Anyone who trusted those predictions—or even got their hopes up—deserved an explanation for the 100% failure of all three. It’s the very least an honest person would have done/offered.

[bagster]

I get it now. You are saying that MY side of the Q debate is like the enviro whackos.

Dude. There are literally THOUSANDS of posts supporting my side of the debate. That is our argument. There for all to see. If you read every one, you wouldn't have to ask even one question. The warmists don't do that. This isn't even a debate. You are the one asking for a debate.

And you are STILL trying to say that refusing debate is proof that the truth is not on the side of the debate refusers. I spent several keystrokes telling that it doesn't. You could be totally right in your argument and STILL that doesn't prove the truth.

The warmists could act the way they act and STILL have the truth on their side. In their case, they don't. Nothing you say makes sense. I must insist that the MANNER of debate oreven REFUSAL to debate does not and cannot prove the truth. It can only prove what it is, a manner or refusal to debate. I can't say that any more plainly.

For the love of God, how do you not get this?

Okay. Baby talk time.

You come up to me and say, "Hey Bagster. What color is the sky?? I say, "Not tellin'. I don't like your face and you suck." You say, "The sky is green." I say, "You're a big fat idiot and I hate you." You say, "Ha. Because you refuse to debate me, I have proven the sky is green. Good day."

But, all is not as it seems. For I knew all along that the sky was, in fact, blue. I just didn't like the manner in which you approached me, and I'm a crusty old bastard, so I refused to debate you.

I will now end the suspense and reveal the truth. The sky was blue all along and I had the truth.

In the meantime, you went home, thinking that you had discovered the truth based on your flawed theory.

Grok?