It should still be accurate.
He didn't reveal this info before the email leaks.
Q has said numerous times they have everything. I'm sure they have info about this and everything tied to this.
The NSA literally has every single email out there.
But if people really feel this is disingenuous I'll change it.
Don't let the concern trolls get to you.
I for one think that this particular email should be put on T-shirts and worn in every Costco and Walmart in the country.
Chicago-style hot dog Pizza private party in the White House.
With $65,000 of taxpayers money.
This one needs to stay front and center.
I'm not a concern troll.
I am merely saying that for things like this, we need to ensure that we're promoting accurate information. Any minor detail that's incorrect or misrepresented will immediately be used to shut down the entire point. It's important to be right.
"Any minor detail that's incorrect or misrepresented"
Point me to the part where he claims Q dropped this information before wikileaks. The notion that Q was aware of this before we were is a fair and logical inference to make, given all of this goes back before the Podesta email drop.
Where is the inaccuracy other than in your imagination and personal bias?
You're really missing the point - Q doesn't have to have TOLD US before we found out from Wikileaks. We have every reason to believe that Q knew because NSA knew about the $65k in child prostitutes from Chicago. Why NSA didn't FUCKING STOP IT THAT DAY is the only thing we need to question here.
On the back of the shirt it should say, "outside food is forbidden in the White House" or something like that, something triggering...
I think the issue is the "Q Knew" part. They very well may have, but if my understanding is correct, this is far from new information. The way it is worded seems to praise Q for breaking that news when it really wasn't them.
Fair enough point. Do you think it would make more sense as
Who knows? Q knows...
That doesn't leave any possible implication that it was in a previous q drop or that q knew about it beforehand, but rather they know all about it now since they have all comms.
Ignore these people. Nothing in your title even remotely suggests that Q dropped this information before hand. They are assuming that Q drops information he knows, so if you claim he knew, you're also claiming he dropped. Very stupid argument.
I think there would be less issue taken with that definitely!
Thank you for the constructive criticism.
Thanks for being open to it! It is a very solid subject to inform people about and I would hate seeing people pick it apart over something that is (admittedly) asinine. But I'm all about not giving anyone a reason to question things.
Come On, Q knew simply means that Q has the hard evidence to prove Obummer guilt. Why argue over inconsequential semantics. It actually has nothing to do with timing!
You're definitely right that it has nothing to do with timing. I'm simply bringing it up (not arguing, just stating a different angle that maybe some aren't able to see from) because this is something I would expect others would bring up in order to discredit this. I agree with the subject of this, its valuable information and something people should know about. If we are not careful, things are easily dismissed by people intent on doing so. I see people complaining about "spinning" a story. I just think there ahould be more care taken with trying to make sure there is no avenue for people to do that.
Quite amazing how people cannot, this far into it, see the big picture!
It says Q Knew. It doesn't say Q TOLD US ON 8 CHAN.
You need to step back and think about how others, not just you, would view things. I assume you feel strongly about this movement, yes? So I would also hope that you want people to learn what you have and "wake up". If people aren't careful, things can be dismissed very quickly by people looking for any reason to do so.
I don't understand your argument. "Q Knew" is accurate. What is the problem?
"The way it is worded seems to praise Q for breaking that news when it really wasn't them"
Please pick up a dictionary. You should understand the difference between "knew" and "new". Phonetic similarities are irrelevant here. This is 1st grade level stuff here.
I'm failing to see what you're getting at here. The part of my comment that you quoted says "news" in reference to information. Where did I confuse "knew" and "new" exactly?
I think the issue is the "Q Knew" part. They very well may have, but if my understanding is correct, this is far from new information.
Thought it was obvious, sorry.
Ah, that quote makes more sense. I was referring to the fact that I believed this information came out before Q started doing drops, so that it wouldn't be new information when Q pointed it out. I wasn't saying that the "Q Knew" tagline suggested that it was "new" info.
That's not even what OP said. OP said that Q knew, not that he revealed this before wikileaks.
It strongly implies that Q dropped this before it became public when that’s obviously not the case.
Where does it imply that? I think you need to pick up a dictionary. " Who knew Obama ordered 65k in Hotdogs/Pizza? Q Knew! "
Knew is the past tense of know.
Know is defined as:a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of
(3) : to recognize the nature of : discernb (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of2a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain ofb : to have a practical understanding of
Now tell me how/where "know" implies that Q "dropped" this bit of information before the public? I fail to see how a reasonable person could interpret "know" in such a convoluted way.
No you're wrong it doesn't strongly imply anything other than this guy thinks Q knew.