So why are you making an issue of it that I am talking about the criminal aspect?

The irony here is a bit funny though give that the story is about Comey supposedly just posting an image of what someone else created but you are telling me you just copied the headline someone else wrote so it's not your message. 

You're an idiot if you think Comey innocently encountered the seashell message on a beach walk and decided to post a picture of it.

The man has shown his disdain for Trump since the 2016 election, and it only got worse throughout the Russia collusion hoax he supervised and until Trump fired him in May 2017.

Whether Comey liked or even just forgot, given the background the argument can certainly be made that Comey "should have known" that 86 also meant to kill, I am not disputing that. My point is that the ambiguity of the term 86, along with the fact that 86 is more widely known as to remove someone than to kill someone, it has trouble meeting the levels of a criminal threat. On top of that, the fact he shared the picture is again does not meet the test of a criminal threat, it would need to be proven he created the message. If a journalist took a photo of a call to violence graffiti and put it in the newspaper, that is protected speech. For those two reasons, this would not pass the test for a criminal charge.

If you want to wag your finger at Comey from a moral/ethical standpoint I have no issues with that, it isn't professional behavior. The fact that Trump would complain about a lack of professional behavior is quite rich but that's another topic.

Wow. Someone really doesn't want to admit that they're wrong again.  I mean, it's not surprising.

Wow. Someone really doesn't want to admit that they're wrong again.  I mean, it's not surprising.

Prove me wrong and I will admit I am wrong. I'll wait.

focus, dumbass
i am not making an issue about you talking about the criminal aspect
i am making an issue about you putting words in my mouth and saying i am talking about the criminal issue
i hope you don't do that to suspects when you are on the job...
\

You chose the title I replied within that context.

You later chided me, saying "you might want to consider that we are not only thinking it was a threat of violence"
We can talk about it criminally and we can talk about it ethically but don't bait and switch me with a criminal context and then ridiculing me from an ethical angle.

You chose the title I replied within that context.

You later chided me, saying "you might want to consider that we are not only thinking it was a threat of violence"
We can talk about it criminally and we can talk about it ethically but don't bait and switch me with a criminal context and then ridiculing me from an ethical angle.

Just wants to argue.

You're an idiot if you think Comey innocently encountered the seashell message on a beach walk and decided to post a picture of it.

The man has shown his disdain for Trump since the 2016 election, and it only got worse throughout the Russia collusion hoax he supervised and until Trump fired him in May 2017.

Nothing to do with the irony I was pointing out, I didn't say I believed Comey's story, I only posted what Comey's claim was.

Nothing to do with the irony I was pointing out, I didn't say I believed Comey's story, I only posted what Comey's claim was.

We can read what Comey claims.  Why do you find it necessary to defend his actions before any trial, defense or even plea deal happens?

My point is that the ambiguity of the term 86, along with the fact that 86
is more widely known as to remove someone than to kill someone, it has
trouble meeting the levels of a criminal threat. On top of that, the fact he
shared the picture is again does not meet the test of a criminal threat, it
would need to be proven he created the message.

Arguing with hypothetical claims that nobody has made as of yet.

We can read what Comey claims.  Why do you find it necessary to defend his actions before any trial, defense or even plea deal happens?
Arguing with hypothetical claims that nobody has made as of yet.

It isn't a defense of Comey, it is an explanation of why what he did wouldn't qualify as a crime as well as what would need to be proven in order to show he did commit a crime.
The fact that the term "86" has ambiguity to it is not a hypothetical, all my posts here are to illustrate how the line is drawn between a threat vs protected speech, the hypotheticals I included are to help you understand better.

It isn't a defense of Comey, it is an explanation of why what he did wouldn't qualify as a crime as well as what would need to be proven in order to show he did commit a crime.
The fact that the term "86" has ambiguity to it is not a hypothetical, all my posts here are to illustrate how the line is drawn between a threat vs protected speech, the hypotheticals I included are to help you understand better.

And Comey doesn't have a history of lying to the public whenever it suits him?

You love to ignore the obvious just to argue.

And Comey doesn't have a history of lying to the public whenever it suits him?

You love to ignore the obvious just to argue.

Strawman, my point has nothing to do with Comey's alleged dishonesty.
I noticed you have a tendency to present arguments I didn't make, trying to defeat them, and then act as if you bested me.

Strawman, my point has nothing to do with Comey's alleged dishonesty.
I noticed you have a tendency to present arguments I didn't make, trying to defeat them, and then act as if you bested me.

Why is it a straw man?  Just because you want to deflect doesn't mean my comment isn't directly on point. 

Did i say you think Comey is telling the truth?  No.  I said you are ignoring his dishonesty in the past which is a fact.

Stop labeling everything you don't want to face a straw man.

A straw man is a type of argument where someone misrepresents or exaggerates
another person's position to make it easier to attack or refute.

Show me where i misrepresented or exaggerated your argument.  You ignoring his dishonesty in your rebuttals is fact, not misrepresentation.

Prove me wrong and I will admit I am wrong. I'll wait.

I already have. Re-read.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Why is it a straw man?  Just because you want to deflect doesn't mean my comment isn't directly on point. 

Did i say you think Comey is telling the truth?  No.  I said you are ignoring his dishonesty in the past which is a fact.

Stop labeling everything you don't want to face a straw man.
Show me where i misrepresented or exaggerated your argument.  You ignoring his dishonesty in your rebuttals is fact, not misrepresentation.

It is a strawman because you said I was ignoring the obvious, you are attacking a position I never took.

His dishonesty isn't relevant, that is why I am not wasting time addressing it.

It is a strawman because you said I was ignoring the obvious, you are attacking a position I never took.

His dishonesty isn't relevant, that is why I am not wasting time addressing it.

So, now you admit you are ignoring his lack of honesty as irrelevant. 

That wasn't a position on my part, but an accurate interpretation of your posts.  Yet you still call it a straw man.

Unbelievable!

So, now you admit you are ignoring his lack of honesty as irrelevant. 

That wasn't a position on my part, but an accurate interpretation of your posts.  Yet you still call it a straw man.

Unbelievable!

I never gave a position about his because it isn't relevant. So yes, I am ignoring your whataboutism allegations of his dishonesty. Whether he was honest or not isn't relevant to whether it is free speech or not. I explained this to you earlier but you want to go in some round about circle to prove something that doesn't matter here.

I never gave a position about his because it isn't relevant. So yes, I am ignoring your whataboutism allegations of his dishonesty. Whether he was honest or not isn't relevant to whether it is free speech or not. I explained this to you earlier but you want to go in some round about circle to prove something that doesn't matter here.

Labeling his lack of honesty as irrelevant shows you don't want to have an honest discussion, and you don't know the meaning of "straw man."

Labeling his lack of honesty as irrelevant shows you don't want to have an honest discussion, and you don't know the meaning of "straw man."

No it shows I am not taking your whatboutism bait.

If Comey's tweet counts as a criminal threat then so does Trump's use of the term "blood bath". Why is Trump's ambiguous statement protected but Comey's is not? Have some ideological fortitude for gosh sakes instead of bending your values to support Trump.

Bottom line "8647" does not meet the standards of a charge for criminal threatening.

It's about that time now. EEF logs in and replies to many post.  But all without substance.

Sometimes he will get noticeably frustrated as name calling tactic will emerge.