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.

 

TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -e11even-

page: 113
131
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by samuelsson removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Muninn

Oh that's a great comeback. But covefefe is still just a typo for the word coverage as the sentence suggests. Otherwise what in hell is "negative press covefefe"?
Just spare me alright? Can you be bigger than this?



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
You (maybe not you, but your Canadian friend) are saying Q is a fraud over a grammatical error that may or may not have been on purpose. Not everyone is 100%, no matter what career field they're in.

I know he isn't saying it over that one grammatical error. He just said "they did it again".


Do you equate grammatical errors to intelligence or lack there of? Honest question.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: imthegoat
That's possible too, and I surely don't rule it out. Just as you shouldn't rule out any other possibilities. Afterall, none of us know a damn thing about the legitimacy of Q.

It is an anonymous poster on the net. Right off the bat everything should be suspect.

I have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt but there are a lot of things that show Q isn't who they claim to be, IMO.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Muninn

Oh that's a great comeback. But covefefe is still just a typo for the word coverage as the sentence suggests. Otherwise what in hell is "negative press covefefe"?
Just spare me alright? Can you be bigger than this?


The question is can you?

Stop playing your silly games.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
That's possible too, and I surely don't rule it out. Just as you shouldn't rule out any other possibilities. Afterall, none of us know a damn thing about the legitimacy of Q.

It is an anonymous poster on the net. Right off the bat everything should be suspect.

I have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt but there are a lot of things that show Q isn't who they claim to be, IMO.


Theres a lot of evidence showing that Hillary/Obama/insertnamehere isnt who they claim to be also. Do you believe any of that?



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: imthegoat
Do you equate grammatical errors to intelligence or lack there of? Honest question.

I already said no.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: imthegoat
Theres a lot of evidence showing that Hillary/Obama/insertnamehere isnt who they claim to be also. Do you believe any of that?

I don't even know what you are talking about. They are who they claim to be. They might not be the public persona they project but, technically, that isn't the same thing.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: samuelsson

Haha. You guys can't stand someone being sensible? My screen name is obviously tongue in cheek. Though I can be silly and funny sometimes. I raised three boys after all.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
Theres a lot of evidence showing that Hillary/Obama/insertnamehere isnt who they claim to be also. Do you believe any of that?

I don't even know what you are talking about. They are who they claim to be. They might not be the public persona they project but, technically, that isn't the same thing.


Their public personas are who they claim to be. I'm talking about the substantial evidence of who they truly are behind the scenes. Not a hard concept to grasp.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
Do you equate grammatical errors to intelligence or lack there of? Honest question.

I already said no.


It's all about clarification. Now do you equate not having a formal education to not being intelligent?



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: imthegoat
Their public personas are who they claim to be. I'm talking about the substantial evidence of who they truly are behind the scenes. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Obama was senator and then was elected president. HRC was first lady, Senator of NY and Secretary of State under Obama. Those are their public personas and who they are, not just who they claim to be.

How they act in private is something else and the difference in being someone and acting a certain way shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp either.

I honestly don't care how either of them act in private.

I still don't know what your point is.


(post by Neil4No1 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

A very pertinent post. Military are stickers for details. Comms cannot contain errors.
edit on 912018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: imthegoat
No.

Are we playing 20 questions?



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
Their public personas are who they claim to be. I'm talking about the substantial evidence of who they truly are behind the scenes. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Obama was senator and then was elected president. HRC was first lady, Senator of NY and Secretary of State under Obama. Those are their public personas and who they are, not just who they claim to be.

How they act in private is something else and the difference in being someone and acting a certain way shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp either.

I honestly don't care how either of them act in private.

I still don't know what your point is.


So the lies theyve all told, the hope promised and never given, the possible illegalities of their actions = means nothing? I now see where you truly stand.



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: imthegoat
No.

Are we playing 20 questions?


Nah, just a few. But why are you coming to the aid of someone (CanadianMason) who believes that a grammatical error means "uneducated basement dweller?"



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Muninn

Oh that's a great comeback. But covefefe is still just a typo for the word coverage as the sentence suggests. Otherwise what in hell is "negative press covefefe"?
Just spare me alright? Can you be bigger than this?


That would be:

'negative press Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically For Engagement'

witch is why you're here, scared, darling.

#MAGA!



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: imthegoat

Don't talk about lies if you support trump in any way. The man and the truth are complete strangers. To steal a quote from a not too well known Florida judge.
edit on 912018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: imthegoat
So the lies theyve all told, the hope promised and never given, the possible illegalities of their actions = means nothing? I now see where you truly stand.

Whatever those things mean doesn't change who they are or the positions they have held. The question here is what position does Q hold. Are they really MI or are they just trolling?

The lies and crimes of Obama, HRC and anyone else have nothing to do with that question.




top topics



 
131
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in

join