Getting vapors? I don’t know what that means. But I do know I’m having fun with the Comey defenders.
James Comey
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
Yup...and its basically never in reference to killing someone. Quite a few people would love to "get rid" of Trump, myself included. The leadership of our country has no chance at being "good" while he's still involved in politics. But I would never dream of wishing him murdered. It takes stupidity, being gullible, being disingenuous (you I suspect), to even entertain that as a potential meaning from a guy like Comey....OBVIOUSLY.
And if he is trolling, he learned from the Master Troll, and its working like a charm.
You act as though there is something wrong here. The board has been 80% useless snark and 20% substance for years. Yet it remains an active board. Some posters might say WTF? But they would be hypocrites.
I think you would at least silently applaud Trump’s death by any means. It wouldn’t have to be murder.
Yeah, I remember that one. It was some minor politician out in Colorado or something. It was about 3 or 4 years ago, IIRC.
There seems to be a comment about the microcosm of the macrocosm here. Maybe the board is reflective of an aggregate of all media outlets. After all, we all post something we read or see and the board reacts to it.
Of course everything I post is on the good side of that 20%
Related, is there any doubt that no matter how he dies there will be a strong contingent of people who will claim it was a murder conspiracy by the left? The guy could live to 102, die peacefully and naturally in his sleep and there will still be people claiming the left finally got him.
I wondered that myself, actually. Then I had actual feelings of anger, fear, compassion...normal feelings I'd have for really anyone else, when he was shot. So no, I don't think I'd be happy about him dying... at its core, I just wouldn't.
What I REALLY want... some sort of reasonable, actually serious, qualified, and good human being... preferably from the GOP side... to somehow gain traction, and begin pulling "us" back in a better direction. THAT is the best, easiest, quickest, and RIGHT way to "86" woke driven leadership from the other side. OBVIOUSLY.
I'm certain MAGA culture will be studied for years. It's objectively certain that it's a real thing and it's very problematic. The causes of this corrosive culture should be studied.
The only time I can ever remember crosshairs on a political ad being in the ether was the Palin ad I linked. Some screwy people pointed to this as playing a role in Gabby Giffords being shot…and, unfortunately, other people I would normally think aren’t so screwy picked it up and ran with it. Not only ran with it, but came to accept it as fact.
It culminated in Palin filing a libel lawsuit against the NYT after their editorial page repeated the claim. Giffords was shot in January 2011. The NYT's editorial reviving the claim that Palin's ad played a causal role in it was published in June 2017 -- over six years later.
Their original 6/2017 editorial, in the wake of the Congressional baseball shooting, contained this:
In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear.
Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.
There are two key falsehoods in those two sentences. First, that the Palin ad played any role in Loughner's shooting. I strongly doubt he ever even saw it. So, no, there was no "link" to political incitement at all. That was imaginary. Second, they insinuate that the "crosshairs" were placed over photographs of people. The crosshairs, as we can all see, were on a US map. They corrected both of them later.I say all this because my guess is that you're remembering something -- an ad with crosshairs over a politician's head -- that never existed. Or, if such a thing ever did exist, it was very obscure...until somebody dug it up in order to try to save some face for the Palin debacle.
Last edited:
I am open to the possibility that Comey was, at some level anyway, trolling in order to help publicize his upcoming book. I'm not saying he was doing that, because I don't have enough information to make that conclusion.
But he did plug a new novel very shortly after posting the seashells. And, coincidentally, the plot has to do with speech inciting political violence....and it seems possible that's not a coincidence. Guerilla marketing is still a thing.
Even with that, I still tend toward thinking that he saw the term "86" as meaning "throw out" (not "kill"). That's how I view the term, anyway, I've never interpreted that term as a euphemism for murder.
At the time I liked several images of Democrat adds and graphics that were nearly identical, like this one from before the 2004 election:I don’t know which faux outrage was more absurd. But does it really matter? They’re both absurd…and that ought to be enough.
Here was the offending “cross hairs on their opponent” ad, FWIW.
"Targeting" the political opponents was not new. It was one of those "nothing burger" things then much like "86 47" is now. I say 86 MAGA! I kind of like it.
Yes it is. That was covered extensively here and that's the graphic. It was nonsense that it had anything to do with the Gafford shooting and it wasn't even unique as numerous similar ads/graphics from Democrats and Republicans were out there prior to that.
I think that all of these kinds of things -- the Palin ad, this Comey thing, the Musk "Sieg Heil", Trump's "Stop the Steal", and countless others -- show (a) how incredibly manipulative and dishonest politicians and their messaging people are, and (b) how impressionable and susceptible to disinformation so many ordinary people are.
And "disinformation" is the correct term here. Misinformation is a unintentional falsehood that isn't offered with malicious intent. Disinformation is a deliberate falsehood, designed to deceive and manipulate.
All of us can gain from having better bullshit detectors -- and they're probably most useful for us when it's our own "side" doling it out.
Also, no one is overreacting about this except the MAGAs who tried to make "86 47" into a threat to murder the President. That's a hyper-emotional nonsensical reaction to "86 47" and the others here, including a couple of MAGA-types, are just pointing that it's a hyper-emotional nonsensical reaction.
Comey knew exactly what he was doing even I know what that meant and I am not in law enforcement. Again most of the guys on this board do not care because they hate trump and hating trump is all that matters. I doubt anything happens to comey but the pure hate from the left really knows no bounds anymore.
You and I have had several exchanges about Trump and MAGA culture. My objective has been to seek some meaning about it. I inquired of you because I respect your intellect you have earned with me over the yrears. Yet I am still frustrated by these exchanges. Almost all I get are mostly reactions and criticisms of an emotional nature. Your #32 is a trypical example. Some of your criticisms I agree with and have said so. My most important cTrump criticism has gone unmentioned by you and all of the never-Trumpers on this board. That criticism is 100% substance. Calling MAGA stupid, unyielding, aggressive etc. is easy— and largely meaningless.
We are still friends 😀
Bailey, you're one of the most hateful people on this board. Are you on the left?
That’s a good point. The board reflects what is happening everywhere.There seems to be a comment about the microcosm of the macrocosm here. Maybe the board is reflective of an aggregate of all media outlets. After all, we all post something we read or see and the board reacts to it.
Of course everything I post is on the good side of that 20%
If the term "86" is widely understood in law enforcement to mean "kill" or "murder", that is news to me. It could well be, I don't know -- as I'm not in law enforcement. My understanding of the term has always been simply to get rid of something, to cancel it, etc. So, if it's come to be a stand-in for killing somebody, that's a new and distinct usage of it.
That said, don't mistake James Comey, just because he was FBI Director, for a law enforcement guy. Not of the cop sort, anyway. He's a lawyer and spent most of his career as a federal prosecutor. So, yeah, OK...that's technically part of law enforcement. But not the kind that uses a lot of street slang.
No, as I said, I remember this one. It was way more recent than the Palin thing. We discussed it here. I tried a search but couldn't find it.
There was also the (relatively) recent case where Roger Stone made a post with the judge in his trial with crosshairs and he found out quickly that was a very very bad idea.
I couldn't swing a dead cat here in Ohio without hitting a MAGA person. I've listed several of the traits they share here on several occasions, but you dismiss them. They are paranoid about government and "libshits" out to get them, angry, grievance based, consider non-Trump loving Republicans enemies no different than Democrats, are all about giving Trump more power because Washington is full of "swamp creatures," no longer care if the President is unethical or breaks the law because "Never Trumpers and Democrats are EVIL, political incivility, unwilling to compromise on anything, change positions when Trump changes his, etc., etc. When it comes to politics it's all illogical and emotional and it's ruining the GOP. Probably already has.
Yes, friends.
Last edited:
When we throw an old metal pipe or pump over the side in the middle of the ocean (absolutely legal, for those that want to jump to that nonsense), we "86 it." It's absolutely a joke to think Comey or any sane person would think "86 47" was a threat to murder the President. It's asinine.
I know a guy who took a leak off the side of the USS Constitution. I'm pretty sure that was not at all legal.
Heh. The story is: we were in Boston for our convention. And there was a swanky event held on the Constitution. One of the more uncouth members of our chapter asked some of the other uncouth members of the chapter (bad idea, especially when alcohol is involved) what the pisser situation was on the ship. The answer, of course, was that they had portajohns set up on the pier. But they told him "You think they had functioning heads in 1797, dumbass? They went over the side."
And...he believed them.
No. You are supposed to be at least 3 miles from the shore before discharging "black water" (sewage) into the ocean. However, your guy wouldn't be the only person to take a leak in the ocean within 3 miles. Swimmers at the beach, boaters, etc. etc.
The US Navy wants to follow the anti-pollution rules, so we do not discharge in port. Our Navy bases and commercial ports have sewage hookups for every ship. That's not the case in many overseas ports. If they don't have hookups, we'll keep it on board in the tanks until we can discharge it legally. If we're in port for more than about a day, we need to discharge it into a sewage barge (ironically, we call them "honey barges") and they are supposed to take it out 3 miles and discharge it there. Mind you, that's while all the non-US ships in port are discharging directly overboard. We were in Pusan in 1995, and we needed the honey barge twice per day to keep up - at $5,000 a pop. I was the ship's Engineer, and the sewage system falls under my responsibility. Well, the first honey barge takes on a load and proceeds about 300-500 yards away from us and dumps it all right there in the harbor. I go to the CO and tell him what they were doing. We knew we'd have to give them some sewage because part of the reason for these visits is to support the country's economy during our visit, but we didn't want to do two a day, so I recommended we do one and then align sewage overboard for half a day. I'd have preferred to do no barges but understood why we couldn't just cut them off for a five-day port visit. We did save $25K.
Absolute BS. This is the same guy that helped get the Gambino crime family.
"In the context of the mob or organized crime, to "86" someone is a euphemism for killing or eliminating them, implying permanent removal from the scene. The phrase is often linked to the idea of taking someone "eight miles out of town and six feet under," referring to the dimensions of a grave (8 feet long, 6 feet deep) or the act of disposing of a body far from civilization. This usage is more sinister than the common restaurant slang, where "86" means to remove an item from the menu or eject a customer. While the mob-related meaning is widely referenced in popular culture and slang dictionaries, its exact origin is uncertain and may stem from the broader slang term's evolution in the early 20th century. Some sources suggest it gained traction in mob contexts due to its coded, discreet nature."
You're trying very hard to make something out of a nothing-burger. It's LOL hilarious. Your Twitter Twits are dumbasses, and their followers are dumber than they are.
Last edited:
well apparently i'm not the only one that remembers the other political ad.
So, no it's not.
Brad, get with it.Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn mor
eigh·ty-six
/ˌādēˈsiks/
verb
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
verb: 86
- 1.
eject or bar (someone) from a restaurant, bar, etc.
"they were accused of cheating, and eighty-sixed from their favorite casino"
- 2.
reject, discard, or cancel.
"the passwords will be 86ed by next October"86 (term) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Now that have we have X, dictionaries are only used by elites.
Well, I'm certain it is, but I could be wrong. I can't find another one, maybe you can. If so, link it. The bottom line is that "targeting" ads weren't unusual or novel, they were fairly common, AND the add had nothing at all to do with the Giffords shooting. There's no evidence that he ever saw it or any other ad politically targeting her. Loughner proved to be a nut, like many of these shooters are.
I said I couldn't find it but what i was referring to didn't happen 17 years ago so it wasn't palin and it wasn't over a map.
Who on this board is defending Comey? Calling out the faux rage dipshits in this thread, who you have apparently skipped over, is not defending him. But, refusing to even acknowledge their stupidity means you are one of them.
Congrats.
if i find it, i'll let you know but google isn't locating anything. It wasn't very long ago and it was a state-wide race (not nationwide). And the crosshairs were over the opposing candidate (not a map).
Was just pointing out how even more ridiculous it is to be overreacting about a 86ing comment when Republicans use crosshairs and guns in campaign ads or even Christmas family photos.
Last edited:
Those photos are pretty awesome. Massie is the best.if i find it, i'll let you know but google isn't locating anything. It wasn't very long ago and it was a state-wide race (not nationwide). And the crosshairs were over the opposing candidate (not a map).
Was just pointing out how even more ridiculous it is to be overreacting about a 86ing comment when Republicans use crosshairs and guns in campaign ads or even Christmas family photos.
Are you saying that the presence of guns in a photo is necessarily an endorsement of or incitement to gun violence?
I'm not much of a gun guy. But a healthy percentage of the people I know hunt, do sport shooting, or both. And it's never occurred to me to associate them or their activities with violence. I'm sure none of them would hesitate to use them in a defensive capacity, if need be. But they typically use them for recreational purposes.
I think this must just be a cultural divide.
Also, I doubt you're going to find anything -- anything other than the Palin ad, anyway. It's the only time in my memory that the issue of crosshairs in political advertising ever made its way into the ether. And the whole thing was a hoax -- which is why we're talking about it in the context of this latest hoax.
I mean, I suppose it's possible that a candidate for some obscure office in rural West Virginia ran an ad with his opponent in a crosshair. It's a big country, with hundreds of years of history.
It's OK if you fell for the Palin hoax. A lot of people did -- even the editorial board at the NYT. I'm not bringing it up to dance on anybody's head....just to say that this sort of deception and manipulation is common and, I think, has played a critical role in our political dysfunction.
Latest posts
-
Looks like the Supreme Court has another case headed their way...- Latest: BradStevens
-
-
-
-
Keir Starmer: "We need to reduce immigration - significantly."- Latest: WhyisIUBBcursed