86 47

[billvon]

'187' means "to Kill". '86" means "to bar or exclude". And if a photo of 86 47 made in the sand upsets you, I'm sure you were apoplectic when they were selling actual merchandise with 86 46 on it. Or was that somehow "different"?

86 46 just meant that patriotic Americans wanted to impeach Biden to save the US. But 86 47 means that violent criminals want to murder Trump.

Context is everything; you first have to determine what party the person belongs to before you decide what their actions mean. For example, take the Jan 6th picture of a man trying to gouge out the eye of a police officer, or the picture of another man trying to beat another police officer senseless with an American flag. Before determining what really happened you must determine the political party of that man.

Is he a democrat? Then he is a violent thug trying to maim and murder cops in order to force his woke socialism down the throats of America's innocent children.

Is he a republican? Then he's just a tourist asking for directions.

 

[Tiassa]

#FourthWall: ¿What, Really?

How is this still going on? This seems an example of the problem; to wit:

Yet a year ago Matt Gaetz tweeted / X'd that he had "86'd" Kevin McCarthy (former Speaker of the House), Ronna McDaniel (former Republican National Committee chairwoman), and Senator Mitch McConnell - all still alive, I might add. He used it to mean that he had removed them from their roles. But now, hypocritically, MAGA are claiming it has the more unsettling meaning. Of course they are. You wouldn't expect anything less from them.

Also, an investigative journalist (James Surowiecki) has said: “During Biden's presidency, MAGA sold ‘8646’ t-shirts and bumper stickers and decals. No one thought that meant they were calling for Biden to be killed.”

So, yeah, just MAGA being MAGA being hypocritical.

At some point, this goes beyond hypocrisy. For instance:

This is the stuff I am really interested in learning about--what are these natural laws, these real lessons of history?

What Parmalee is referring to is, essentially, the powdered concentrate, no real juice, just add water. That thing I've been saying about when science and enlightenment inform differently than superstition, it's fairly common in the United States: The liberalism they fear is essentially the result of a series of if/then statements attending both historical principle and scientific reality.

Consider anti-feminism, anti-gay, anti-trans, and even anti-Muslim. The arguments leading to recognition of human, civil, and constitutional rights for women, homosexuals, transgender, and Muslims, among others, are a logical result, valid and reliable, within constitutional and cultural-historical frameworks applied to what reality informs.

To the supremacists who lose prestige and power, it's all just a bunch of nonsense. And there's the trick. Since liberals, by that conservative narrative, just do what they want according to whatever they make up in the moment, so will conservatives.

This is what justifies the free speech of cacophony↗, in which all speech is equal for having been uttered. In such an environment, affirmable facts are no better, and often considered grievously worse, than make-believe. And it's part of how this free speech of cacophony actually disrupts communication↗.

And, I mean, come on, this thread? Okay, sure, after all this time, we have reasonable reason to accept Sculptor↑ really doesn't know. But that's also probably the sort of thing to remember on other occasions when he's doing his thing: We're supposed to believe he's that clueless. And, okay, whatever; it just means that what he says matters less in any substantial context, and it is left each to each to decide whether to waste any time or effort trying to take him seriously.

In summary: There never was any question about what "86 47" means, but only a sickness of bad faith to pretend confusion.

And that, too, is probably the sort of thing to remember on other occasions when conservatives are doing their thing.

 

[(Q)]

I had thought that Comey's posting of the controversial message was most likely done to generate interest in his new book
titled "FDR Drive"
in the spirit of
"there's no such thing as bad publicity"

Comey is a bit of a narcissist, he craves the attention but often attracts negative attention.

 

[sculptor]

Okay, sure, after all this time, we have reasonable reason to accept Sculptor↑ really doesn't know.

OK
No one really knows what Comey meant except Comey.
The rest is all speculation.
And:
Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Tiassa]

OK
No one really knows what Comey meant except Comey.
The rest is all speculation.
And:
Your guess is as good as mine.

Again, per the first response to your thread:

Typically, MAGA are trying to assert that the "86" means "kill" - as in "assassinate" - and are trying to claim that the person who posted the image is calling for the assassination of Trump, or at least threatening him.

Yet a year ago Matt Gaetz tweeted / X'd that he had "86'd" Kevin McCarthy (former Speaker of the House), Ronna McDaniel (former Republican National Committee chairwoman), and Senator Mitch McConnell - all still alive, I might add. He used it to mean that he had removed them from their roles. But now, hypocritically, MAGA are claiming it has the more unsettling meaning. Of course they are. You wouldn't expect anything less from them.

Also, an investigative journalist (James Surowiecki) has said: “During Biden's presidency, MAGA sold ‘8646’ t-shirts and bumper stickers and decals. No one thought that meant they were calling for Biden to be killed.”

And there we are, well and done.

I honestly don't believe that you didn't know, as Sarkus explained, "86 is American slang, used in a number of sectors, but typically meaning 'to remove', 'to discard', 'to throw out'."

Some newbie, fresh off the boat, maybe. But not the self-assured wisdom of such worldly vintage as you pretend.

 

[Ken Fabian]

As a not-American observer of the train wreck in progress I find it ironic that overthrowing tyranny is a primary justification for the right to bear arms. At what point does carrying arms for that purpose stop being a patriotic act?

But I seriously doubt any US court would deem an assassination of a President a legal act, irrespective of the fact or degree of even blatantly unconstitutional tyranny. It always seemed to me a lot like post-insurrection justification to include that in the US Constitution, like what had just been done was, despite definitely illegal "should not have been"; I suspect it got included in the belief that would not happen. Apart from maybe being 'invaded' by the British and trying over again.

 

[billvon]

As a not-American observer of the train wreck in progress I find it ironic that overthrowing tyranny is a primary justification for the right to bear arms.

That's a _stated_ justification. It is not the primary justification for most gun owners; it is merely the most noble one, and thus it is the one that is espoused most often.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Perhaps one of the indicators of tyranny is tyrannically deciding what the words the enemies of tyranny use mean. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Doubleplusgood, yay.

 

[parmalee]

That's a _stated_ justification. It is not the primary justification for most gun owners; it is merely the most noble one, and thus it is the one that is espoused most often.

And it makes perfect sense given the near universal adherence to the Doctrine of Fair Fighting: You can't use your gun if your opponent only has a knife; similarly, they can't use their tank if you've only got a gun.

In fact, respect for this principle is why the families of many of our finest presidents, like the Bush's, for instance, were in the business of providing weapons both to the US, as well as to the Nazis.

 

[ольга]

And it makes perfect sense given the near universal adherence to the Doctrine of Fair Fighting: You can't use your gun if your opponent only has a knife; similarly, they can't use their tank if you've only got a gun.

In fact, respect for this principle is why the families of many of our finest presidents, like the Bush's, for instance, were in the business of providing weapons both to the US, as well as to the Nazis.

Какой ещё честный бой с нацистами? Бешенных собак стреляют, а не дают им оружие. Просто некоторым всё равно кому и что продать. Интересы бизнеса на первом плане.

 

[parmalee]

What other fair fight with Nazis? Mad dogs are shot, not given weapons. Some people just don't care who they sell what to. Business interests come first.

And in America, that is gospel. What sane and reasonable people might regard as treasonous--providing weapons to the enemy--makes one a true man (always a man) of God.

 

[(Q)]

OK
No one really knows what Comey meant except Comey.
The rest is all speculation.
And:
Your guess is as good as mine.

Except for the fact of what "86" actually means, which many of us do, don't you? It's not a guess, it's a simple statement that anyone can understand. We all knew what it meant when Conservatives used "86 46" against Biden. So, what's the big deal now? Is this Conservative hypocrisy in plain view?

 

[geordief]

Except for the fact of what "86" actually means, which many of us do, don't you? It's not a guess, it's a simple statement that anyone can understand. We all knew what it meant when Conservatives used "86 46" against Biden. So, what's the big deal now? Is this Conservative hypocrisy in plain view?

Is the game to use Comey as a scapegoat ?
Will they prosecute him for the sport ,knowing full well he will be found innocent?

Will it actually be hard for them not to do so if the "base" is baying for blood(or is Comey not really grade A red meat so that they may pass this time?)

Was he pulled in bc Trump got onto his placelings and ordered the public spectacle?

 

[(Q)]

Is the game to use Comey as a scapegoat ?
Will they prosecute him for the sport ,knowing full well he will be found innocent?

Will it actually be hard for them not to do so if the "base" is baying for blood(or is Comey not really grade A red meat so that they may pass this time?)

Was he pulled in bc Trump got onto his placelings and ordered the public spectacle?

Just like Conservatives always do, they'll find meaningless ways to waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money to do this sort of thing so that they can grand stand on Fox news.

 

[billvon]

Except for the fact of what "86" actually means, which many of us do, don't you? It's not a guess, it's a simple statement that anyone can understand.

This is pretty much par for the course.

A conservative says something insightful: "It's absolutely clear what he meant! Anyone who speaks English can understand what he said. Words mean things!"

A conservative says something dumb: "Well, words mean different things. I mean, no one really knows what he meant, right?"

 

[Atlan0001]

It's just tit for tat theater. Comey won't be arrested or successfully prosecuted for something like this, anymore than JK Rowling was for tweaking Scotland's hate crime law, last year.
_

As I've said, he has already been successfully prosecuted, charged and convicted, in the largest court of the land. The same larger court that exonerated President Trump of all the crimes Stalinist Beria-types ("give me the man, I'll give you a crime") politically charged and -- in the long run, uselessly -- convicted him of. Truths will eventually will out in the long run of histories and natural laws that divide from, or go with, legends.

 

[(Q)]

As I've said, he has already been successfully prosecuted, charged and convicted, in the largest court of the land. The same larger court that exonerated President Trump of all the crimes

Would that be the Maga Court?

 

[Atlan0001]

Would that be the Maga Court?

It most certainly would be the Make America Great Again court, put first among nations rather than put last as Woke-Socialist cannibals, thugs, terrorists, the corrupt and treasonous fifth columnists and Quislings, and enabler, enabling, Neville Chamberlains (Munich 1938CE), inside the gates, would have it.

 

[C C]

I had thought that Comey's posting of the controversial message was most likely done to generate interest in his new book titled "FDR Drive" in the spirit of "there's no such thing as bad publicity"

But with respect to reversing who the target is (in the book). And it's not entirely clear that Samuel Buchanan is employing a coded message when "suggesting something should be done about them".

• FDR Drive
  https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781613166444
  
  PLOT: U.S. attorney Carmen Garcia is trying to take down Samuel Buchanan, a far-right media personality with a popular podcast vilifying those he thinks are destroying America: intellectuals, immigrants, and people of color. Garcia believes Buchanan went far beyond the protection of the First Amendment when he singled out his enemies by name and suggested “something should be done” about them. His fans have obliged, killing or grievously injuring some of his foes. In a series of tense and exhilarating courtroom scenes, Garcia works with Deputy U.S. Attorney Nora Carleton to bring Buchanan down. Then, just as they’ve convicted him, a new threat emerges: some of his followers have planned an act of terror at an upcoming UN convention.

 

[C C]

Maybe dating back well over thirty years in origin, "86" does feature "to kill" as one of its many evolved significances. But the usage is rare and far from being the first assumption. Doubtless that meaning will rise higher in the ranks, though, after this furor.

• What Does 'Eighty-Six' Mean?
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/eighty-six-meaning-origin
  
  EXCERPT: [...] Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of “to kill.” We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.
  
  John Kifner: "I hate to see the guys always getting eighty-sixed," she said, using military jargon for killed in action. "Not fair.” — The New York Times, 3 Feb. 1991