Comey, What an Asshat
-
So, woodpecker - when the ex DIRECTOR OF THE FBI says "86"....
it has a different meaning and context.
Unless you have some conservative ex FBI DIRECTOR in mind,
you lose AGAIN.
what a bird butt.
It has whatever context makes you the most triggered. Whatever context lets you make believe as the victim the hardest.
The big tough manly conservatives throwing a tantrum over the exact same language they've used before but had no problem with at the time
Give me a fucking break you spineless, pathetic fool
*fart* *moan* *fart* peck
aw, bird has to learn a new word:
context /kŏn′tĕkst″/noun
- The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
- The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.
The part or parts of something written or printed, as of Scripture, which precede or follow a text or quoted sentence, or are so intimately associated with it as to throw light upon its meaning.
The woodpecker song - watch woodpecker dance. "Bird is the word"
-
Nearly everyone around here knows that the "bird is the word".
Bird is the word meaning:
"a birdbrain loser who can't intelligently converse on any subject, and who whines and bitches out false
narratives endlessly, while making a complete ass of itself"
-
No Woody, you continue to ignore the fact that the left has a far greater propensity for resorting to violence.
86 is just a small component of the big picture that you continue to ignore. So lets just stick to 86.You are as bad as you claim Cal and Nick to be.
So you happen to find someone on the right uttering 86.
You’re off to a good start, now find the conservative equivalencies for the rest of incidents I’ve listed and I will conclude with you that both sides are equals.It’s that simple. Or is it.
Oh BTW…something about a Congressional subcommittee hearing on left wing violence in case you’re interested.
Why exactly are you attempting to move the goalposts from the topic of this thread?
Are we just trying to distract from the right's use of 86 in the past so that the MAGA group here can continue to pearl clutch?
Let's agree that either using "86" isn't some awful call for assassination or let's condemn the right for doing the same thing in the past.
Everything else you're posting is just to pull away from the topic at hand
Why exactly are you attempting to move the goalposts from the topic of this thread?
Are we just trying to distract from the right's use of 86 in the past so that the MAGA group here can continue to pearl clutch?
Everything else you're posting is just to pull away from the topic at hand
There’s no moving goalposts dimwit. The issue is your refusal to come to terms with the fact that the left is far more prone to violence.
Did I not already recognize the fact you came upon a Republican using the term 86?
I believe I did.
Sure, I’ll agree to condemn the right for doing the same thing in the past.
Now will you finally agree that the left has a greater propensity for violence as demonstrated by the examples I listed?No more deflecting.
-
So, woodpecker - when the ex DIRECTOR OF THE FBI says "86"....
it has a different meaning and context.
Unless you have some conservative ex FBI DIRECTOR in mind,
you lose AGAIN.
what a bird butt.
It has whatever context makes you the most triggered. Whatever context lets you make believe as the victim the hardest.
The big tough manly conservatives throwing a tantrum over the exact same language they've used before but had no problem with at the time
Give me a fucking break you spineless, pathetic fool
It has whatever context makes you the most triggered. Whatever context lets you make believe as the victim the hardest.
The big tough manly conservatives throwing a tantrum over the exact same language they've used before but had no problem with at the time
Give me a fucking break you spineless, pathetic fool
86 is code for getting rid of or removing…its also can mean assassinating or killing.
In the example you gave of Gaetz, 86’d clearly meant mission accomplished over the removal of McConnell and two others.
I looked it up and found 8646 was also used, calling for the impeachment of Biden. There is no debating its intent.
So now we have 8647. By what means do you suppose they take another shot at removing Trump? (pun intended). To impeach yet again???
-
It has whatever context makes you the most triggered. Whatever context lets you make believe as the victim the hardest.
The big tough manly conservatives throwing a tantrum over the exact same language they've used before but had no problem with at the time
Give me a fucking break you spineless, pathetic fool
86 is code for getting rid of or removing…its also can mean assassinating or killing.
In the example you gave of Gaetz, 86’d clearly meant mission accomplished over the removal of McConnell and two others.
I looked it up and found 8646 was also used, calling for the impeachment of Biden. There is no debating its intent.
So now we have 8647. By what means do you suppose they take another shot at removing Trump? (pun intended). To impeach yet again???
86 is code for getting rid of or removing…its also can mean assassinating or killing.
In the example you gave of Gaetz, 86’d clearly meant mission accomplished over the removal of McConnell and two others.
I looked it up and found 8646 was also used, calling for the impeachment of Biden. There is no debating its intent.
So now we have 8647. By what means do you suppose they take another shot at removing Trump? (pun intended). To impeach yet again???
So when the Reps, multiple Reps, use it, it means remove or impeach
But when Comey, a former Rep, uses it, then it totally definitely means assassinate?
You're gonna strain something pearl clutching
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Why exactly are you attempting to move the goalposts from the topic of this thread?
Are we just trying to distract from the right's use of 86 in the past so that the MAGA group here can continue to pearl clutch?
Everything else you're posting is just to pull away from the topic at hand
There’s no moving goalposts dimwit. The issue is your refusal to come to terms with the fact that the left is far more prone to violence.
Did I not already recognize the fact you came upon a Republican using the term 86?
I believe I did.
Sure, I’ll agree to condemn the right for doing the same thing in the past.
Now will you finally agree that the left has a greater propensity for violence as demonstrated by the examples I listed?No more deflecting.
There’s no moving goalposts dimwit. The issue is your refusal to come to terms with the fact that the left is far more prone to violence.
Did I not already recognize the fact you came upon a Republican using the term 86?
I believe I did.
Sure, I’ll agree to condemn the right for doing the same thing in the past.
Now will you finally agree that the left has a greater propensity for violence as demonstrated by the examples I listed?No more deflecting.
It’s an easy enough concept to prove. All you need are all the names of violent crime offenders and their respective political affiliations. It’ll take some sorting.
Aside from that, all there really is are opinion pieces and anecdotal instances to prove that the left has a greater propensity for violence than the right. You could be correct, but l don’t think anyone here has the time or gumption to unequivocally prove that.
This is akin to the “all righties are racists” argument because some republican made a questionable comment. Maybe righties do have a greater propensity to be racists? But how the heck to you unequivocally prove that? You really can’t without an unreasonable amount of research.
-
There’s no moving goalposts dimwit. The issue is your refusal to come to terms with the fact that the left is far more prone to violence.
Did I not already recognize the fact you came upon a Republican using the term 86?
I believe I did.
Sure, I’ll agree to condemn the right for doing the same thing in the past.
Now will you finally agree that the left has a greater propensity for violence as demonstrated by the examples I listed?No more deflecting.
It’s an easy enough concept to prove. All you need are all the names of violent crime offenders and their respective political affiliations. It’ll take some sorting.
Aside from that, all there really is are opinion pieces and anecdotal instances to prove that the left has a greater propensity for violence than the right. You could be correct, but l don’t think anyone here has the time or gumption to unequivocally prove that.
This is akin to the “all righties are racists” argument because some republican made a questionable comment. Maybe righties do have a greater propensity to be racists? But how the heck to you unequivocally prove that? You really can’t without an unreasonable amount of research.
It’s an easy enough concept to prove. All you need are all the names of violent crime offenders and their respective political affiliations. It’ll take some sorting.
Aside from that, all there really is are opinion pieces and anecdotal instances to prove that the left has a greater propensity for violence than the right. You could be correct, but l don’t think anyone here has the time or gumption to unequivocally prove that.
This is akin to the “all righties are racists” argument because some republican made a questionable comment. Maybe righties do have a greater propensity to be racists? But how the heck to you unequivocally prove that? You really can’t without an unreasonable amount of research.
How much more evidence do you need that the left are violent race baiting ,gaslighting commies?...
Wake up lol..
Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~ -
There’s no moving goalposts dimwit. The issue is your refusal to come to terms with the fact that the left is far more prone to violence.
Did I not already recognize the fact you came upon a Republican using the term 86?
I believe I did.
Sure, I’ll agree to condemn the right for doing the same thing in the past.
Now will you finally agree that the left has a greater propensity for violence as demonstrated by the examples I listed?No more deflecting.
It’s an easy enough concept to prove. All you need are all the names of violent crime offenders and their respective political affiliations. It’ll take some sorting.
Aside from that, all there really is are opinion pieces and anecdotal instances to prove that the left has a greater propensity for violence than the right. You could be correct, but l don’t think anyone here has the time or gumption to unequivocally prove that.
This is akin to the “all righties are racists” argument because some republican made a questionable comment. Maybe righties do have a greater propensity to be racists? But how the heck to you unequivocally prove that? You really can’t without an unreasonable amount of research.
It’s an easy enough concept to prove. All you need are all the names of violent crime offenders and their respective political affiliations. It’ll take some sorting.
Aside from that, all there really is are opinion pieces and anecdotal instances to prove that the left has a greater propensity for violence than the right. You could be correct, but l don’t think anyone here has the time or gumption to unequivocally prove that.
This is akin to the “all righties are racists” argument because some republican made a questionable comment. Maybe righties do have a greater propensity to be racists? But how the heck to you unequivocally prove that? You really can’t without an unreasonable amount of research.
You also get into the area where we don't agree on who is left or right, and we don't agree on what is considered violence
Again, a large portion of this board thinks Jan 6th didn't happen, or it wasn't actually that bad, or it was an inside job / false flag, etc.
If we can't agree on basic reality anymore then what is the point of trying to debate anything?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
It’s an easy enough concept to prove. All you need are all the names of violent crime offenders and their respective political affiliations. It’ll take some sorting.
Aside from that, all there really is are opinion pieces and anecdotal instances to prove that the left has a greater propensity for violence than the right. You could be correct, but l don’t think anyone here has the time or gumption to unequivocally prove that.
This is akin to the “all righties are racists” argument because some republican made a questionable comment. Maybe righties do have a greater propensity to be racists? But how the heck to you unequivocally prove that? You really can’t without an unreasonable amount of research.
You also get into the area where we don't agree on who is left or right, and we don't agree on what is considered violence
Again, a large portion of this board thinks Jan 6th didn't happen, or it wasn't actually that bad, or it was an inside job / false flag, etc.
If we can't agree on basic reality anymore then what is the point of trying to debate anything?
*FART* PECK PECK PECK
you don't agree about what violence is? You won't say Laken Riley's name, or any other name who has been raped and murdered etc ?
But you think a Grandma in a wheelchair PRAYING outside of an abortion clinic is violence?
The point of debate is to discuss things intelligently, but you nave never done it.
Will it never end?
-
86 is code for getting rid of or removing…its also can mean assassinating or killing.
In the example you gave of Gaetz, 86’d clearly meant mission accomplished over the removal of McConnell and two others.
I looked it up and found 8646 was also used, calling for the impeachment of Biden. There is no debating its intent.
So now we have 8647. By what means do you suppose they take another shot at removing Trump? (pun intended). To impeach yet again???
So when the Reps, multiple Reps, use it, it means remove or impeach
But when Comey, a former Rep, uses it, then it totally definitely means assassinate?
You're gonna strain something pearl clutching
So when the Reps, multiple Reps, use it, it means remove or impeach
But when Comey, a former Rep, uses it, then it totally definitely means assassinate?
You're gonna strain something pearl clutching
Funny he denied knowing what it even meant. That tells me his thoughts.
-
It’s an easy enough concept to prove. All you need are all the names of violent crime offenders and their respective political affiliations. It’ll take some sorting.
Aside from that, all there really is are opinion pieces and anecdotal instances to prove that the left has a greater propensity for violence than the right. You could be correct, but l don’t think anyone here has the time or gumption to unequivocally prove that.
This is akin to the “all righties are racists” argument because some republican made a questionable comment. Maybe righties do have a greater propensity to be racists? But how the heck to you unequivocally prove that? You really can’t without an unreasonable amount of research.
You also get into the area where we don't agree on who is left or right, and we don't agree on what is considered violence
Again, a large portion of this board thinks Jan 6th didn't happen, or it wasn't actually that bad, or it was an inside job / false flag, etc.
If we can't agree on basic reality anymore then what is the point of trying to debate anything?
Again, a large portion of this board thinks Jan 6th didn't happen, or it wasn't actually that bad, or it was an inside job / false flag, etc.
What's your reality, they were mostly peaceful protests? That 6 feet of separation and masks saved lives? Biden was fine all up until his last debate with Trump?
That men are women and can have babies? Russia collusion is why Trump won the 1st election? Hunters laptop was compromised or didn't exist? It was a staffers cocaine in the WH?
Funny for someone in your reality to criticize anything.
-
It’s an easy enough concept to prove. All you need are all the names of violent crime offenders and their respective political affiliations. It’ll take some sorting.
Aside from that, all there really is are opinion pieces and anecdotal instances to prove that the left has a greater propensity for violence than the right. You could be correct, but l don’t think anyone here has the time or gumption to unequivocally prove that.
This is akin to the “all righties are racists” argument because some republican made a questionable comment. Maybe righties do have a greater propensity to be racists? But how the heck to you unequivocally prove that? You really can’t without an unreasonable amount of research.
How much more evidence do you need that the left are violent race baiting ,gaslighting commies?...
Wake up lol..
How much more evidence do you need that the left are violent race baiting ,gaslighting commies?...
Wake up lol..
I just told you, it will take statistics. If the hypothesis is “lefties are more prone to violence than righties”, then you do what any reasonable person would do if the goal is to prove that. You use statistics.
Get the names of all violent offenders over a specific period of time in a specific region. Then figure out their political affiliation, and boom, now you have statistics.
It’s basically an impossible task, which means this is an impossible argument.
-
How much more evidence do you need that the left are violent race baiting ,gaslighting commies?...
Wake up lol..
I just told you, it will take statistics. If the hypothesis is “lefties are more prone to violence than righties”, then you do what any reasonable person would do if the goal is to prove that. You use statistics.
Get the names of all violent offenders over a specific period of time in a specific region. Then figure out their political affiliation, and boom, now you have statistics.
It’s basically an impossible task, which means this is an impossible argument.
I just told you, it will take statistics. If the hypothesis is “lefties are more prone to violence than righties”, then you do what any reasonable person would do if the goal is to prove that. You use statistics.
Get the names of all violent offenders over a specific period of time in a specific region. Then figure out their political affiliation, and boom, now you have statistics.
It’s basically an impossible task, which means this is an impossible argument.
This group will also take ten news stories about illegal immigrant violence and extrapolate it over millions of people
Definitely nothing else influencing their decision....
-
I just told you, it will take statistics. If the hypothesis is “lefties are more prone to violence than righties”, then you do what any reasonable person would do if the goal is to prove that. You use statistics.
Get the names of all violent offenders over a specific period of time in a specific region. Then figure out their political affiliation, and boom, now you have statistics.
It’s basically an impossible task, which means this is an impossible argument.
This group will also take ten news stories about illegal immigrant violence and extrapolate it over millions of people
Definitely nothing else influencing their decision....
*LIE* *FART* peck peck
baloney. Say Laken Riley's name. Or continue to be an ostrich woodpecker.
-
*FART* PECK PECK PECK
you don't agree about what violence is? You won't say Laken Riley's name, or any other name who has been raped and murdered etc ?
But you think a Grandma in a wheelchair PRAYING outside of an abortion clinic is violence?
The point of debate is to discuss things intelligently, but you nave never done it.
Will it never end?
But you think a Grandma in a wheelchair PRAYING outside of an abortion clinic is violence?
The point of debate is to discuss things intelligently
You’re spot on there Calf, discuss things intelligently.
I don’t recall anyone claiming a woman in a wheelchair praying was a violent act. Please link that for me so that l can make fun of them as well. That’s a ridiculous thing to say.
-
It’s an easy enough concept to prove. All you need are all the names of violent crime offenders and their respective political affiliations. It’ll take some sorting.
Aside from that, all there really is are opinion pieces and anecdotal instances to prove that the left has a greater propensity for violence than the right. You could be correct, but l don’t think anyone here has the time or gumption to unequivocally prove that.
This is akin to the “all righties are racists” argument because some republican made a questionable comment. Maybe righties do have a greater propensity to be racists? But how the heck to you unequivocally prove that? You really can’t without an unreasonable amount of research.
You also get into the area where we don't agree on who is left or right, and we don't agree on what is considered violence
Again, a large portion of this board thinks Jan 6th didn't happen, or it wasn't actually that bad, or it was an inside job / false flag, etc.
If we can't agree on basic reality anymore then what is the point of trying to debate anything?
and we don't agree on what is considered violence
woodpecker refuses to say Laken Riley's name.....
-
and we don't agree on what is considered violence
woodpecker refuses to say Laken Riley's name.....
-
@calfoxwc said:
woodpecker refuses to say Laken Riley's name.....
Well ok then, you made that bit up about the praying grandma. No worries, not out of character.
At least you’re actually quoting Woody instead of inserting goofy peck/fart things. Thanks for discussing things intelligently.
-
-
It’s an easy enough concept to prove. All you need are all the names of violent crime offenders and their respective political affiliations. It’ll take some sorting.
Aside from that, all there really is are opinion pieces and anecdotal instances to prove that the left has a greater propensity for violence than the right. You could be correct, but l don’t think anyone here has the time or gumption to unequivocally prove that.
This is akin to the “all righties are racists” argument because some republican made a questionable comment. Maybe righties do have a greater propensity to be racists? But how the heck to you unequivocally prove that? You really can’t without an unreasonable amount of research.
You also get into the area where we don't agree on who is left or right, and we don't agree on what is considered violence
Again, a large portion of this board thinks Jan 6th didn't happen, or it wasn't actually that bad, or it was an inside job / false flag, etc.
If we can't agree on basic reality anymore then what is the point of trying to debate anything?
and we don't agree on what is considered violence
Again, a large portion of this board thinks Jan 6th didn't happen, or it wasn't actually that bad
woodpecker refuses to say Laken Riley's name.....
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login