I think this new movie with Tom Hanks protecting this little girl is part of a psyop to make us think he’s not a pedophile. That is all.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (102)
sorted by:
I promise you, I am not trolling you on purpose. Look at my post history if you wish to see what type of responses I give.
You spoke about Tom Hanks brother and implied he must be guilty by relation. I suggested we:
People who study Q want evidence. Sometimes we appreciate speculation, but mostly this is a critical thinking exercise. You are calling me a troll for suggesting we only convict people we have evidence for. I am flabbergasted by such a response.
We all want to escape our Luciferian bonds. We all want justice. But we must not be bloodthirsty. There is a very good reason our justice system begins with "Innocent until proven guilty." Despite the corruption that has invaded it, that is still the appropriate place to start.
There is zero good in the mentality of "guilty by association" and that was the main statement I was making. If you saw something different than either I misspoke, or you misunderstood.
Pretty sad that we have to tell grown adults this.
Was this not implying that because he "must be a Rothschild descendent" that he was guilty of wrong doings? If not, then I misunderstood and my response was misplaced. If that is the case then I apologize.
However, I'm fairly certain my response never fell into the category of "Lefty douche-baggery." If you think so, then I suggest maybe you read it with anger and did not hear what I actually said.
Regardless I am happy to let it go. You are welcome to hate whomever you choose. I'd even die trying to defend your right to hate me (if some entity was trying to take such acts of free will away from us all).
I appreciate your response. I don't disagree with anything you are saying here. I would like to point out however, that none of this was apparent from the thread I was responding to. Perhaps you said these things in another part of the thread, but if so its important to keep in mind that someone entering the thread will start at the top and read down. From my perspective this is all you said before I responded.
Nothing really relevant here.
Very few elements of the above response are contained in this short post.
Regardless, this was the real part i was responding to:
From this I made the assumption that you were suggesting that blood relation was an automatic indictment. Again, perhaps I took it the wrong way, but even reading it now, that is what I see. Having said that, if you said all those other parts in your argument further (much further) down the thread then I can see your frustration with my response. If this is the case, if I may, I'd recommend keeping in mind how the thread reads out to the new reader before laying in to a responder with so much frustration.