TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -73N-

A tip to Qsters about Q deniers,

Posting history is very relevant.

They love to co opt older unused accounts. They think it gives them credibility.

Look for the accounts that have been around for years with minimal posting history that have suddenly become very active.

Most of these are compromised accounts in my opinion and should be treated as such.

ETA most

a reply to: Aallanon

Like mine 🐼

Russky caramba.

..I still think cranky is Q.

originally posted by: Aallanon
A tip to Qsters about Q deniers,

Posting history is very relevant.

They love to co opt older unused accounts. They think it gives them credibility.

Look for the accounts that have been around for years with minimal posting history that have suddenly become very active.

These are compromised accounts in my opinion and should be treated as such.

Good tip Patriot!

Bringing back the old ATS.

Where one guy posts, we all follow.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo



Seems you used to have a different opinion, Hmmm,

It's funny that you say they don't run the media, yet in your second paragraph say "This paranoia all gose back to the WWII propaganda campaigns to the 60’s and 70’s when the CIA did indeed have the capability to plant stories in the press knowing that the Soviets would have a read it." Acknowledging the fact that they did. I agree with you to an extent OP. The CIA doesn't DIRECTLY control what news stories are printed, they more so just guide them. Your example of: "If the CIA were really planting stories in the press the first thing they would have done in 2003 is write a totally fabricated report for FoxNews that they had found 12 nuclear warheads in Iraq and they were right along and this would have validated the administration’s foreign policy". Well, 12 nuclear warheads is a hard lie to sell, and you can't sell hard lies. Instead they chose to go with the WMD lie, and people bought it hook, line, and sinker. I wish I could talk more about this but alas my girlfriend wants to go on a walk. Maybe we can U2U in the future because I truly do enjoy your posts. edit on 8-1-2011 by GeechQuestInfo because: (no reason given)

a reply to: samuelsson

yes

a reply to: Aallanon

Please don't think of me that way. I became active just for Q...in a positive way.

a reply to: Aallanon

You have a new PM.

😉

a reply to: CADpro

I don't.

a reply to: Aallanon

Thanks !

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo



Seems you used to have a different opinion, Hmmm,

It's funny that you say they don't run the media, yet in your second paragraph say "This paranoia all gose back to the WWII propaganda campaigns to the 60’s and 70’s when the CIA did indeed have the capability to plant stories in the press knowing that the Soviets would have a read it." Acknowledging the fact that they did. I agree with you to an extent OP. The CIA doesn't DIRECTLY control what news stories are printed, they more so just guide them. Your example of: "If the CIA were really planting stories in the press the first thing they would have done in 2003 is write a totally fabricated report for FoxNews that they had found 12 nuclear warheads in Iraq and they were right along and this would have validated the administration’s foreign policy". Well, 12 nuclear warheads is a hard lie to sell, and you can't sell hard lies. Instead they chose to go with the WMD lie, and people bought it hook, line, and sinker. I wish I could talk more about this but alas my girlfriend wants to go on a walk. Maybe we can U2U in the future because I truly do enjoy your posts. edit on 8-1-2011 by GeechQuestInfo because: (no reason given)

Somewhat. Do I believe some of the stuff said about media control and the like. Sure. I used to believe it A LOT more.

Hell, you should pull up some of my alien posts, they were fool on crazy talk.

I’ve never believed in internet Charlatans though.

Just because some of my views may align with Q on certain things, doesn’t make Q real either. It’s still just a random snipposter on the internet.

You do see the difference right?

Really good article re the recent " Q " hype.
It makes for a pretty sound analysis of the increasing interest in Q
Conspiracies can be consuming.
Some of the ones being consumed really should get away from the internet for a break in the real world.
Make bread
....make love....
Smell the trees.
You will feel better ....really.


link to Q article

a reply to: cosmickat

Ironic how someone on the internet tells people they should not be on the internet. Durp reeee

a reply to: cosmickat

Monachs are on the milkweeds, Orioles are massing at the feeders, Hawks are crying to each other....crickets.... Thanks for the advice but I can multitask...

Plus if we weren't paying attention, we'd be il informed about the crowd... Strangely looking like the below....... They used a ton of extras in this scene too

Back to digging,

Give Hillary credit: She was adept at insinuating her phony oppo research document into the public record and at using it to weaponize U.S. intelligence agencies on behalf of her failed campaign. But then, we all knew this had happened. What's stunning is the casual way Clapper let us know that President Obama "was responsible" for the whole shebang. If that's so, there are really only two possibilities: One, that a gullible Obama was fed phony information from Brennan and the Hillary Clinton campaign. He then over-reacted by tasking the intelligence community to look into it. Or, two, that Obama knew he was dealing with tainted information. Instead of halting a bogus investigation, he let Brennan carry it forward. Why? He thought it would help elect Hillary Clinton — and cement his own presidential legacy for posterity. At a minimum, what seems obvious is that the deep state triad of Obama, Clinton and Brennan colluded. They did it to damage Trump's campaign with allegations of Russian interference in the election. And they got the FBI and, later, a special prosecutor, to conduct a high-profile investigation. Such collusion, if only in the political sphere, wouldn't be a crime. However, using federal assets and personnel and misrepresenting what you're doing to a FISA court to influence an election are crimes. Felonies, in fact.

www.investors.com...

But instead of investigating Trump, shouldn't we investigate those who subverted our democracy for rank partisan purposes to influence a presidential election? That's Obama, Brennan and Clinton.

For those interested,

Congressional Correspondence Regarding Hillary Clinton Email Server Investigation Part 01 of 01

vault.fbi.gov...

a reply to: CADpro

I am only here for my daily ....wazzzzuuuppp ATSssssers ?
How long is this ongoing thread now ?
Some posters are actually living here.
I saw the trash bags outside.

Durp ree ????
Geezo you have your own language too ?
Take some time off the chans

a reply to: MetalThunder

I liked the first part of your reply...
But that scene spoiled it @

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: toysforadults

"Follow the Foundation," the legacy of FBIanon

[/shameless self plug]

Seems I missed that thread. Links to each FBIAnon Q and A for those who are interested.

S&F for your linked thread.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

I was responding to you because I thought I could have a real discussion but all you present are personal opinions.

Yes, Q said arrests were going to happen and they did not happen. So what?

He also said disinfo was necessary, so... We’ve been here before. And yes, you’re trying to proof he’s a larp.

You just can’t.



Enjoy your day.