This is so dumb. So everyone wants to see a list with high flyers only to have everyone’s hopes dashed when their lawyers get them freed? You think a list is all that’s needed to convict? The real play is to convict based on evidence like what they’re doing with Comey and Co. FORGET EPSTEIN!!
You do realize that Q was a psyop, right? Sure, a psyop with specific objectives, but a psyop nonetheless. Taking Q literally because you think you know exactly what Q meant all the time, that's just willfully ignoring the fact that you simply do not know. Hey, you can believe you know, and that's fine, but its not the same as knowing.
Acknowledging what we do no know here is just as important, if not more important, that recognizing what we do know.
Do you think Q are liars?
What, do you think that Q was there to tell you exactly what is going on? An oracle?
Absolutely no one who followed Q during the drop period thought we would be exactly where we are today. It's about time that smarter folks began recognizing that there's plenty we do not know about the Q operation.
Fundamentally, there is super solid evidence to verify that Q was a military intel operation, and DJT knew all about it (Q+), and that the primary core objective was getting people to wake up and think for themselves. Many people woke up, but then failed to learn to think for themselves. Effectively thinking for yourself demands being honest intellectually and emotionally, and anyone who says that the definitely know what Q meant or said or why is not being honest. In my opinion.
Taking Q literally because you think you know exactly what Q meant all the time
I said, Q said nobody walks from this, and I also said Q has everything.
I never claimed to know what Q meant all the time. But the two statements above are phrased to be taken at face value, there's nothing ambiguous about either statement.
Now how about you?
only to have everyone’s hopes dashed when their lawyers get them freed?
I'm assuming, because you're responding in this subthread, that you are taking the guy's side that I replied to -- that you believe focusing on Epstein is dumb and we should forget about it?
I always found that people who insist the entire Q community only focus on one thing to be odd, as if we all couldn't both focus on Epstein and Comey at the same time.
What, do you think that Q was there to tell you exactly what is going on? An oracle?
No. Not an Oracle. Not at all.
If I tell you that tomorrow, I will wear a blue shirt -- when tomorrow comes and I'm wearing a blue shirt --
Does that make me a prophet?
Does it mean I've built a time machine and saw that I would be wearing a blue shirt?
Have I constructed a super-impressive AI that predicts the future?
Or maybe I know what is happening because I made it happen.
When Q told us that McCain would be "in the news", and he died exactly one month later, to the exact minute and accounting for the complex daylight saving nuances of Arizona ... do I think an Oracle told Q that was going to happen?
No. That was the date they scheduled to kill the traitor, and they controlled the exact time to be fed to the MSM.
Project Looking Glass is a government plan to meticulously orchestrate future events, while "calling the shots" that would happen before hand so accurately that the casual observer would believe it were prophesized by an Oracle. But in reality, they just knew they were going to wear a blue shirt.
I'm assuming, because you're responding in this subthread, that you are taking the guy's side that I replied to -- that you believe focusing on Epstein is dumb and we should forget about it?
No, not really. That's a very bad assumption, and only reinforces to me that your perspective is "me vs him". Either I'm right or he's wrong. And he's wrong. So I'm right.
I think he made some reasonable arguments, highlighting the focus on "The List" and the solidness of what he considers "the real play". These are not unreasonable ideas to consider, even if he expressed them in a rather blunt and polarized way.
But I also think you over-react, and if he is polarized and a bit .... extreme (?) in his view, I think you are too.
In my humble view, its not black or white. I'm not sure I know what DJT is doing here. And, I'm more than willing to consider that there are multiple ways of looking at and understanding the situation.
And frankly, I don't find (what comes across as your ) sense of absolute conviction about your own interpretation and perspective either persuasive or constructive.
These things could be discussed. Instead, we have one guy expressing (curtly, I'll admit) his view, and another just going extreme and coming back with "Do you think that Q are liars????!".
Every time I see people able to actually discuss, consider alternative views and share perspectives (and thereby contribute to the development of the collective thought), I see that approach accompanied by a certain level of humility. A willingness to admit, "hey, maybe I do not know, and maybe what I think is not how it is, etc. I believe this, but...."
That humility and willingness to admit the limitations of personal knowledge seems to be absent in those who come up with extreme reactions that are really only rhetorical attempts to shut down the other viewpoint and claim some sort of dialectical victory.
People with solid grounded views are able to consider others' views, or discuss them, rather than just attempting to shout them down.
But the two statements above are phrased to be taken at face value, there's nothing ambiguous about either statement.
"nothing ambiguous about either statement"
To you. Nothing ambiguous to you. And, you are 100% sure that you know what they mean, even in the context of the whole Q operation. Right?
Q wrote it, so it literally MUST be true. Yeah?
I think your absolutist and excessive confidence in what can only be described as 'your interpretation' smacks of a sort of 'true believer' fundamentalism I've seen plenty of times in our community. And maybe, just maybe, that over confidence makes it impossible for you to even consider certain alternative perspectives.
me? The longer I have been involved in the Great Awakening (going on about 8 years, if you count from Q), the more I realize how much I do not know. At the same time, my conviction that God is working through Donald Trump, and that the Q operation was a military intel operation with certain fundamental objectives I find those convictions only increasing.
Hey, but that's just me. If you don't find anything in my comments here, I mean, feel free to ignore them. But that's what I see.
In closing, I'll say, that the very fact that Q stated "Sometimes disinformation is necessary" opens up all sorts of possibilities, some of which some people are simply unwilling to consider, because it threatens their fervently held beliefs.
This is so dumb. So everyone wants to see a list with high flyers only to have everyone’s hopes dashed when their lawyers get them freed? You think a list is all that’s needed to convict? The real play is to convict based on evidence like what they’re doing with Comey and Co. FORGET EPSTEIN!!
Q said nobody walks from this.
Q said they have it all.
Do you think Q are liars?
The plan involves exposing what is going on, which pushes the population to the precipice.
If military is the only way, who cares what muh lawyers think? They going to get them out of a military tribunal?
When Trump said "Nah, don't focus on Epstein" ... did you really believe it? You don't think Trump was baiting?
And do you think people get arrested or not arrested based on what we remember or forget here on GAW?
You do realize that Q was a psyop, right? Sure, a psyop with specific objectives, but a psyop nonetheless. Taking Q literally because you think you know exactly what Q meant all the time, that's just willfully ignoring the fact that you simply do not know. Hey, you can believe you know, and that's fine, but its not the same as knowing.
Acknowledging what we do no know here is just as important, if not more important, that recognizing what we do know.
What, do you think that Q was there to tell you exactly what is going on? An oracle?
Absolutely no one who followed Q during the drop period thought we would be exactly where we are today. It's about time that smarter folks began recognizing that there's plenty we do not know about the Q operation.
Fundamentally, there is super solid evidence to verify that Q was a military intel operation, and DJT knew all about it (Q+), and that the primary core objective was getting people to wake up and think for themselves. Many people woke up, but then failed to learn to think for themselves. Effectively thinking for yourself demands being honest intellectually and emotionally, and anyone who says that the definitely know what Q meant or said or why is not being honest. In my opinion.
I said, Q said nobody walks from this, and I also said Q has everything.
I never claimed to know what Q meant all the time. But the two statements above are phrased to be taken at face value, there's nothing ambiguous about either statement.
Now how about you?
I'm assuming, because you're responding in this subthread, that you are taking the guy's side that I replied to -- that you believe focusing on Epstein is dumb and we should forget about it?
I always found that people who insist the entire Q community only focus on one thing to be odd, as if we all couldn't both focus on Epstein and Comey at the same time.
No. Not an Oracle. Not at all.
If I tell you that tomorrow, I will wear a blue shirt -- when tomorrow comes and I'm wearing a blue shirt --
Does that make me a prophet?
Does it mean I've built a time machine and saw that I would be wearing a blue shirt?
Have I constructed a super-impressive AI that predicts the future?
Or maybe I know what is happening because I made it happen.
When Q told us that McCain would be "in the news", and he died exactly one month later, to the exact minute and accounting for the complex daylight saving nuances of Arizona ... do I think an Oracle told Q that was going to happen?
No. That was the date they scheduled to kill the traitor, and they controlled the exact time to be fed to the MSM.
Project Looking Glass is a government plan to meticulously orchestrate future events, while "calling the shots" that would happen before hand so accurately that the casual observer would believe it were prophesized by an Oracle. But in reality, they just knew they were going to wear a blue shirt.
Thanks for the reply.
No, not really. That's a very bad assumption, and only reinforces to me that your perspective is "me vs him". Either I'm right or he's wrong. And he's wrong. So I'm right.
I think he made some reasonable arguments, highlighting the focus on "The List" and the solidness of what he considers "the real play". These are not unreasonable ideas to consider, even if he expressed them in a rather blunt and polarized way.
But I also think you over-react, and if he is polarized and a bit .... extreme (?) in his view, I think you are too.
In my humble view, its not black or white. I'm not sure I know what DJT is doing here. And, I'm more than willing to consider that there are multiple ways of looking at and understanding the situation.
And frankly, I don't find (what comes across as your ) sense of absolute conviction about your own interpretation and perspective either persuasive or constructive.
These things could be discussed. Instead, we have one guy expressing (curtly, I'll admit) his view, and another just going extreme and coming back with "Do you think that Q are liars????!".
Every time I see people able to actually discuss, consider alternative views and share perspectives (and thereby contribute to the development of the collective thought), I see that approach accompanied by a certain level of humility. A willingness to admit, "hey, maybe I do not know, and maybe what I think is not how it is, etc. I believe this, but...."
That humility and willingness to admit the limitations of personal knowledge seems to be absent in those who come up with extreme reactions that are really only rhetorical attempts to shut down the other viewpoint and claim some sort of dialectical victory.
People with solid grounded views are able to consider others' views, or discuss them, rather than just attempting to shout them down.
"nothing ambiguous about either statement"
To you. Nothing ambiguous to you. And, you are 100% sure that you know what they mean, even in the context of the whole Q operation. Right?
Q wrote it, so it literally MUST be true. Yeah?
I think your absolutist and excessive confidence in what can only be described as 'your interpretation' smacks of a sort of 'true believer' fundamentalism I've seen plenty of times in our community. And maybe, just maybe, that over confidence makes it impossible for you to even consider certain alternative perspectives.
me? The longer I have been involved in the Great Awakening (going on about 8 years, if you count from Q), the more I realize how much I do not know. At the same time, my conviction that God is working through Donald Trump, and that the Q operation was a military intel operation with certain fundamental objectives I find those convictions only increasing.
Hey, but that's just me. If you don't find anything in my comments here, I mean, feel free to ignore them. But that's what I see.
In closing, I'll say, that the very fact that Q stated "Sometimes disinformation is necessary" opens up all sorts of possibilities, some of which some people are simply unwilling to consider, because it threatens their fervently held beliefs.