-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions ---SHALL WE PLAY A GAME ONCE MORE?--- -Part- --41--

a reply to: More1ThanAny1
Now you are clutching at straws. Yeah, Jesus was the exception, that is why your argument fails.

a reply to: XtheMadnessNow

C'mon man
We The People Want to Know ?
CAN u deliver
Don't hold back

Lol

Please
Stay Topical
After all
FRESH baked goods, enjoy
FBI’s Hunter Biden episode shows need for CLEAN break

The whistleblowers further claim Thibault shut down a line of Hunter investigation, going so far as to attempt “to improperly mark the matter in FBI systems so that it could not be opened in the future.” (Thibault’s lawyers have denied he did anything wrong.) In an August letter, Grassley added that whistleblowers said “FBI leadership told employees ‘you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop,’ and that the FBI is ‘not going to change the outcome of the election again’” — an allusion to the Hillary Clinton investigation in 2016.

Carry on

Comprende

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: More1ThanAny1
Now you are clutching at straws. Yeah, Jesus was the exception, that is why your argument fails.

Keep digging...

"Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2)

"The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground." (Genesis 19:1)

a reply to: More1ThanAny1
So you think Q is an angel?

I think most people would disagree although some have said they think they might be an alien, time traveler and other stuff.

You do realize that even if Q were an angel my point still stands, humans are not going to take down the cabal.

Keep trying you might just catch a straw.

a reply to: XtheMadnessNow
Looking at the entry on the wayback machine, I don't see anything bombastic about it.

originally posted by: daskakik
So you think Q is an angel?

No.

originally posted by: daskakik
I think most people would disagree although some have said they think they might be an alien, time traveler and other stuff.

Don't care.

originally posted by: daskakik
You do realize that even if Q were an angel my point still stands, humans are not going to take down the cabal.

You state things as fact so effortlessly it is almost like you didn't just get destroyed by facts and revealed as being practically factless.

"Humans are not going to take down the cabal." Go ahead, show me your evidence for that.

originally posted by: daskakik
Keep trying you might just catch a straw.

Is that your tactic? Just keep trying until you catch a straw? You probably shouldn't recommend it to people, it doesn't work.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1
Actually the argument was "The bible says things will get progressively worse until the second coming." implying that humans were not going to take down the cabal.

Even what you posted to try and refute this didn't say humans would do it.

Maybe if it is a MAGA politician getting the payday from the Canadians it is wrong. A Dem doing that, and it is not wrong. At least, according to their playbook.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Justoneman

Is it wrong to pay off enough Congressional Reps to trade Chicago for its value in Maple Syrup to the Canadians?

It's an election year, and I'm looking for a good cause.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: More1ThanAny1
Actually the argument was "The bible says things will get progressively worse until the second coming." implying that humans were not going to take down the cabal.

Even what you posted to try and refute this didn't say humans would do it.

Yes
You said that
You are still wrong.
I do have to clarify.
All my points to you address the lead up to power of the AC.
You are arguing the final battle as if it is the lead up like you claimed and it is not.
The rider on the white horse leading 144,000 is the cleanup act.
Vengeance is His.
But as far as what you are implying about it getting worse before the 2nd coming. Worse for who?
Certainly you do not mean society?
The unbelieving masses will think it is awesome.
For believers not so much.
So define what you consider to be "progressively worse"
There will be disease, famine, wars.
But when?
After the rise to power.
Not the lead up.
As in the days of Noah...

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: Justoneman

agreed



Saw a quote that's so true ... To me

The rich focus on what they want while the poor focus on what they don't want.

Time to focus on making it better peeps. Not dwelling in a fabricated reality meant to keep you on your heels in worry fear and doubt.
My belief is in No church , but what's within each of us.... ITs who we are , accept IT or not
Fill in the dots
We are the "Y" s

TGIF

That is a secret we can all practice. To focus on what you want instead of what you don't wan't is an important distinction. To focus on a positive, say love, is way better than to focus on a negative. It seems to be scientific that we attract things to us we are focused on achieving. If we chose to focus on the "not this" field of thinking we are not focusing on the "just this" concepts in a way that it attracts success as it would if you were just positive.

My dad has been a big Norman Vincent Peele fan who wrote "the power of positive thinking". Plus, Napoleon Hill who wrote "think and grow rich". Both liked the concept of accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative thinking. Clearly, it works.

a reply to: Justoneman


Goes without saying...

....

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
You are arguing the final battle as if it is the lead up like you claimed and it is not.

No, I am not, I'm saying that Q claims it is their goal to rid the earth of evil.

I then pointed out that that doesn't happen in the bible version until the end and it isn't done by humans.

Hmmm? Ok, hmm...


I think you have something here. A lot more than just what I marked too.

originally posted by: cimmerius

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: carewemust
Q said we should trust FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Does anybody recall the context of that statement, why he said this?

No but in the end that will be a hammered nail in Q's coffin or a feather in the Q hat.

(Regarding, Q said we should trust FBI Director Christopher Wray.)


Just a slight tip of the hat to those who suggest that the Q posts and narrative built around them contain enough wiggle room to be interpreted any which way.

None of the people Q has said to trust have proven themselves to be white hats without any doubt.

It was even suggested earlier in these threads that when Q said “trust” it might simply mean that person can be expected to act in a predictable way. Not necessarily in a good way. Perhaps they can be counted on to do the wrong thing.

In that sense, there are certain bad players we can trust completely. Who we can trust to do good things-- not so clear.

And then there is the “disinformation is necessary” qualification. It’s kind of an easy-out for whatever doesn’t hold up. Like when religious folk say “God works in mysterious ways that we can’t possibly understand” to end a discussion when they don’t have any other answer.

The narrative becomes mythological in the sense that it is a closed system of logic for which there is an explanation within that system for absolutely any occurrence. It’s impossible to prove a theory wrong that can accommodate any experimental result. If you work fully from within that system, there is no obvious exit door.

I’m not trying to be a nay-sayer. But maybe objectivity is called for.

On the one hand, to a hammer everything looks like a nail. On the other hand, if we can’t connect dots, we will never understand anything that isn’t spelled out.

Balance and discernment are key.

What do we really know and what do we just think?

Clear sight is not just a matter of the eyes.
.

a reply to: daskakik

SHOW ME
All posts are available , as well as Scripture
Be all that you can BE
Or are you making claims
I'm from Missouri
Otherwise its a figment of your Projection
Daily Dot

Mikey

Untrue.
You claimed everything gets progressively worse until then. You were clearly talking of the lead up to power

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
You are arguing the final battle as if it is the lead up like you claimed and it is not.

No, I am not, I'm saying that Q claims it is their goal to rid the earth of evil.

I then pointed out that that doesn't happen in the bible version until the end and it isn't done by humans.

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
You claimed everything gets progressively worse until then. You were clearly talking of the lead up to power

No, I was speaking in generalities because I was simply referring to the goals of each plot to show one says it happens one way and the other has a different version of who and how.

a reply to: daskakik

Impressive

No, I was speaking in generalities because I was simply referring to the goals of each plot to show one says it happens one way and the other has a different version of who and how.

a reply to: daskakik

May have nothing to do with TT but the author who was writing many of those articles on WikiSpooks up until the domain went offline. The author Patrick Haseldine wiki page was sanitized off of wikipedia sometime back.

Last posting was a piece on Ukrainian Natalya Vovk.

DNS issues? Forgot to pay the bill? I can reach the WikiSpook site using IP:

198.199.127.59...

And there are new entries posted.

Patrick Haseldine

You will likely get a cert warning trying to access but, looks to be nothing suspicious.

a reply to: MetalThunder
Nope, the original claim was only 2 sentences.

Everything else was just elaboration on things people brought up to try and refute that.

Cue the JP memes...the revolving door swamp rat is back.

White House