Califan007 The Constipated

1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said:

Why is everyone hatin' on Cracker Barrel???

For a second I thought that was a nickname for Lauren Boebert lol...

2 hours ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

 

um…. I posted it before you probably around 50 pages ago. I feel I should be getting the laughs. You have stolen laughs from me

Um...i posted it before either of you back in 1982 after my date with Michelle Shepherd.

7 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Is she trying to say it was a different bowling alley?...

When I was a kid I thought this was the creepiest album cover ever created lol...it still creeps me out.

Umm...

Did I miss part of the hearing testimony where they talked about "this"? lol...

6 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Well they seem to have indeed fixed it then from what I see. I didn’t see the page the other day when it was only head coach. But today it has the other roles included, which is good 

Well I'm glad they finally did it, but can't for the life of me understand why they effed up in the first place. They could grab any 3 ES members at random to act as proofreaders and they would make less mistakes lol...

6 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Well they seem to have indeed fixed it then from what I see. I didn’t see the page the other day when it was only head coach. But today it has the other roles included, which is good 

Here's how it looked before:

6 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

And the gamesmanship continues, the committee gets one up on him with this one.  Now that hes made it clear hes able to appear on that date, they have accepted but made it clear it will be under the subpoena.  Now he has to back out.  But if he doesnt show hes now very obviously "dodging" the subpoena and putting himself in legal trouble with clear contempt.

1 minute ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

I’m guessing it had a year other than 1993 for head coach prior to fixing it? I checked earlier today so it must’ve been updated since it now includes all the positions he had, as well as the correct year he was the HC. 
 

 

What needed to be fixed was listing him as head coach ONLY. In the history of this franchise, Petitbon's time as head coach is maybe 0.10% of his contribution. It would be like listing John Riggins as a tight end because he played TE for 3 games in 1977.

7 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Wait….why? He was the head coach in 1993, wasn’t he? 

 

according to his Wikipedia page, 

secondary coach 1978-1980

defensive coordinator 1981-1992

head coach 1993

he was the successor to Gibbs when Gibbs retired, but was only head coach for that one season. 

 

If they are given a label to define each person's role in the greatness of the franchise, giving Petitbon the label of "Head Coach" says he's best known for a ****ty 4-12 season which lead to him being fired. That's why.

Not to mention the years they say he was head coach are when Joe Gibbs was head coach.

Today's hearing might end up being a bit like that one judge who spoke soooo....slowly...in that these guys' words today will gain more power when read compared to when heard:

14 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

I'm not sure the motivation to have these two people testify.  Or, I understand the motivation, but I'm not sure it's the best use of the public hearings.  I'll listen though.

If nothing else, it puts two "every men"-types under oath that maybe MAGA members can see themselves in. The ones who watch, anyway lol...

The one dude is doing much better now, though...

1 hour ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

and petibon now says head coach instead of whatever it said before (not sure what it said before) 
 

It said "head coach" before...it's not supposed to say "head coach" at all.

Dr. Pepper execs: "Why the **** couldn't Cassidy Hutchinson be drinking Dr. Pepper instead?!?!"

Dr. Pepper is probably pissed to see their product in Powell's hand lol...

Video of homeless man singing on the street goes viral, and now he's been...whoops, it's Neil Young. My bad.

Gonna NSFW this one just to be safe lol...

6 minutes ago, @DCGoldPants said:

 

The thread on Bannon's defeat in court today is interesting, and this quote is after a bunch of what his lawyers were trying, failed. But still. By itself.... "If there are no defenses" is pretty spot on.

The judge shut down Bannon completely (or damn close to it)...that thread was a wonderful read lol...

51 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Youre  working hard to create straw-man arguments.

 

This must mean you hadn't considered how bots could be considered a "problem" outside of "5% isn't that many". It also means you're trying to use a past response of mine back towards me lol...

Here's a few more mind-benders for you: What if bots only make up 5% of Twitter accounts but make up 25% of tweets?...What if 90% of misinformation tweets are created and/or spread by bots? Is that a problem?