It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
SUMMONS (1) Issued Electronically as to GEORGE SOROS. (zsth)
SUMMONS (14) Issued Electronically as to AMERICAN BRIDGE 21ST CENTURY, DAVID BROCK, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, CLINTON FOUNDATION, CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE, CLINTON-GIUSTRA ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP, CORRECT THE RECORD, JAN GILOOLY, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA, JOHN PODESTA, SHAREBLUE, JONATHAN WACKROW.(zsth)
originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: Millions
I can "reveal" quite a bit.
Most just want everything explained in a way that "makes" them understand, but it doesn't work that way. True knowledge should never be overtly conveyed, and more often than not, when the "seeker" is given direction, the initial desire wanes]
originally posted by: Outlier13
Nothing you have posted answers the simple question I asked. Instead you are once again stepping around it because your statement was factually incorrect. You used a Q drop with two words that do not answer my question. Once again, where has Q stated they are in fact MI?
Of course people can discuss a topic without belief in a topic, however, I pointed out you are using Q's information to attempt to validate an argument you pose when that very information is information you do not believe to be legitimate. AKA contradictory beliefs, AKA cognitive dissonance.
You have no alternate theories yet make claims Q is illegitimate? Therefore your claim to illegitimacy is null.
originally posted by: Skyfloating
originally posted by: Outlier13
You cannot answer the question and continue to deflect. You made a factually incorrect statement and don't like being called out by it which is why you continue to deflect. It's not that I don't like your response. It's that your response is lacking the necessary supporting evidence to support your statement.
Your choice is to use information you believe to be illegitimate which means you are conflicted.
You do have to prove all existing proofs are illegitimate if you make the claim they are all legitimate. One by one you must prove this.
You win a debate by providing a conclusion(s) that supports your premise(s). It's how it's done. Otherwise you have no credibility as an opposing argument. Want to prove Q is illegitimate? Then do it otherwise...what's the point?
originally posted by: Outlier13
There is not Q drop where Q states "We are military intelligence".
A better word for Q would be authentic or genuine versus your use of the word legitimate. Q infers they are close to POTUS. There are and have been multiple proofs that prove this. You can try to debate, debunk, argue, disprove or whatever but it won't change the fact there are valid proofs that inexplicably show Q and POTUS are in the same circle. I would concede that some proofs can be a bit of a stretch but the majority of the proofs I have reviewed are irrefutable.
Will some of Q's drops be wrong? Sure. I don't know how it would be possible to get all drops right in a real time situation. Just doesn't happen. Is the information that is wrong evidence of an intentional psy op or that Q is a LARP? I don't believe this.
Still my question remains why would you commit so much time to a topic you do not believe in?
originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: tiredoflooking
Catching up so apologies if anyone has already said this...
POTUS trip to UK still scheduled for Friday 13th July. He's git a meeting in Europe next day so not sure I he's even staying overnight.
BBC today is already running with a story saying the UK police are complaining how much it will take out of their budget securing his visit. This story also allows them to say protests are expected, which is effectively calling for people to turn up to protest 3 weeks in advance (am v disgusted with this manipulation).
originally posted by: Outlier13
You made a direct statement that was incorrect. You need to own your mistake. You made the statement "MI is who Q claims to be". I challenged you to show me the Q drop where Q makes this statement. You provided a Q drop stating only "military intelligence" at the top of the drop...2 words. Now you're trying to deflect and claim you were implying your response was what the "general consensus" is and not your own response? Trying to side step your inaccurate statement does not exonerate you from culpability.
The proofs are not my opinion as there are many that are substantiated by facts. Therefore they cannot be opinion. My statement, "I do not believe this" is an an example of opinion as it is not substantiated by facts. I understand how to clearly convey my thoughts.
You don't have an alternative theory on Q and only cherry pick some of Q's drops while simultaneously admitting "much of the info is perfectly legit" yet still claim Q is not authentic? (you said "not legitimate" - I use authentic).
You sound conflicted and still haven't offered a believable reason as to why you continue to post here or why you follow Q so closely.