John Kelly Refutes That Trump Called Soldiers Losers

[BullBuchanan]

22 minutes ago, B-Man said:

That moment when someone tries (and fails)

to counter a Redstate article by posting a Bulwark link. . . . . . . 
 

Are they trying to be funny?

 

Do they realize what they did ?

 

 

I guess even a right wing site isn't radical enough for you?

I didn't choose where they authored their expose.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-bulwark/

[SectionC3]

7 hours ago, DFT said:

Fake news!

 

If I wanted to copy a lib, I’d strap on my pink helmet, scream at the sky and accuse you of being a racist, you lyin dog-faced pony soldier.

And there are 4 sides of an aisle when you count the entry and exit..   you’d make a terrible Jedi.  Thank god for antifa’s low standards.

 

Hmmm . . . last I checked side means a position to the left or to the right of the starting point.  I knew you alt wrongers liked alternative facts, but I didn't realize you had delved into "fake lefts" and "fake rights."  Interesting.  

6 hours ago, GG said:

Is that when the President instructed his intel chiefs to dig up dirt on a Presidential candidate?  Or when that President winked away as his intel chiefs tried to frame the incoming administration?

 

I get my Presidential scandals confused all the time now.  

 

Apparently you haven't heard of it.  It was the scandal in which anonymous sourcing supported reporting that took down a crooked, deceitful President.  

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/carl-bernstein-defends-atlantic-editor-almost-all-200-of-our-stories-about-watergate-were-based-on-anonymous-sourcing

 

It's almost as if history is trying to repeat itself!

[SectionC3]

8 hours ago, DFT said:

Hoax!  
 

I think both said pretty plainly that there are many guilty parties on every side of the aisle.  

 

 

 

Hmmm . . . so, now that you seem to think "the generals" are profiteers, could you please identify at least two Army generals who are providing from war mongering?  I think we're getting to a Rule #2 situation here and we need some specificity. 

9 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think President Trump respects the men and women in uniform.  I think you’re lying when you say that “every public utterance made” by President Trump supports your contention that he does not respect men and women in uniform. 
 

 

 

 

 

Hoax.  In this context "the" means "all."  And Trump does not respect "all" men and women in uniform.  Case in point:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53337818

[DFT]

46 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hmmm . . . so, now that you seem to think "the generals" are profiteers, could you please identify at least two Army generals who are providing from war mongering?  I think we're getting to a Rule #2 situation here and we need some specificity. 

 

Hoax.  In this context "the" means "all."  And Trump does not respect "all" men and women in uniform.  Case in point:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53337818

You want me to show the end results of a potential investigation?  Like...  You want me to tell you who’s guilty before the investigation is even concluded?  Hmm...  That sounds dangerously un-American, even for a socialist such as yourself.  Oh C-section...   That’s where your slow thread pull lead???   I’m very disappointed that you couldn’t be a little more creative.  

 

Let’s let your attorney general take the lead on your request to specifically name at least “2” generals that are presently guilty of treasonous acts.  You see, we have a judicial system designed to investigate matters like these.  Once they discover, I’m sure they’ll disclose. I understand your nervousness though.  Up until the last few years, I wouldn’t have trusted them much myself.  May your day be filled with Jesus!

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hmmm . . . last I checked side means a position to the left or to the right of the starting point.  I knew you alt wrongers liked alternative facts, but I didn't realize you had delved into "fake lefts" and "fake rights."  Interesting.  

 

Apparently you haven't heard of it.  It was the scandal in which anonymous sourcing supported reporting that took down a crooked, deceitful President.  

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/carl-bernstein-defends-atlantic-editor-almost-all-200-of-our-stories-about-watergate-were-based-on-anonymous-sourcing

 

It's almost as if history is trying to repeat itself!

Last I checked side means a position to the left or right?  So if we’re speaking about bi-partisan political aisles, are we to ignore the independent vote?  Because that would mean 3.  Those darned alternative facts.  
 

Again, I’ve enjoyed your slow road to nowhere, C.  Back to the “herpe filter” with you.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

54 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hmmm . . . so, now that you seem to think "the generals" are profiteers, could you please identify at least two Army generals who are providing from war mongering?  I think we're getting to a Rule #2 situation here and we need some specificity. 

 

Hoax.  In this context "the" means "all."  And Trump does not respect "all" men and women in uniform.  Case in point:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53337818

Sometimes you make an interesting point.  Sometimes your game is amusing.  Sometimes you work too hard. 
 

Your argument regarding context is unfounded, and a simple google search quickly disproves Tibs’ contention about every public utterance made by President Trump. 
 

As for the article linked, a leader shows respect for those he leads by making difficult, unpopular and sometimes controversial decisions. I don’t know that the Vindman situation qualifies as any of those beyond political theater.  Regardless,  President Trump respected Vindman enough to be honest with him, which is enough. Perhaps in the long run, Vindman will be better for it. 

[SectionC3]

44 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Sometimes you make an interesting point.  Sometimes your game is amusing.  Sometimes you work too hard. 
 

Your argument regarding context is unfounded, and a simple google search quickly disproves Tibs’ contention about every public utterance made by President Trump. 
 

As for the article linked, a leader shows respect for those he leads by making difficult, unpopular and sometimes controversial decisions. I don’t know that the Vindman situation qualifies as any of those beyond political theater.  Regardless,  President Trump respected Vindman enough to be honest with him, which is enough. Perhaps in the long run, Vindman will be better for it. 

 

Hoax.  Words matter.  You're a literalist of convenience.  In the context in which you used the word, "the" means all.  And Trump does not respect "the" men and women in uniform.  He respects some.  He denigrates others.  So let's keep our eyes on the prize with respect to that point. 

[SoCal Deek]

25 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  Words matter.  You're a literalist of convenience.  In the context in which you used the word, "the" means all.  And Trump does not respect "the" men and women in uniform.  He respects some.  He denigrates others.  So let's keep our eyes on the prize with respect to that point. 

Not everyone deserves unwaivering respect. Regardless of the color of their skin or the color of their uniform. We’ve learned a lot these last four years. 

[Doc]

10 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Took zinc with it.  That adds the silver to that bullet.  

 

Hoax.  It's the most dangerous drug ever invented.

[WEATHER DOT COM]

You still on it, Doc?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  Words matter.  You're a literalist of convenience.  In the context in which you used the word, "the" means all.  And Trump does not respect "the" men and women in uniform.  He respects some.  He denigrates others.  So let's keep our eyes on the prize with respect to that point. 

Considered. Rejected as unfounded and unnecessarily argumentative.  

 

Your interpretation of my comments is your burden to shoulder, and I am completely comfortable with that. 

 

As to your final comment in particular, condescending and presumptuous. 

 

 

[B-Man]

8 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

I guess even a right wing site isn't radical enough for you?

I didn't choose where they authored their expose.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-bulwark/

 

 

I am well aware that the Bulwark is conservative-lite,

 

But, as you should be aware, they were founded by virulent "never trumpers" 

 

and as such, any opinion that they render on the Atlantic hit piece needs to be viewed in that light. 

 

and the article you so readily posted of them 'attacking' Redstate was solely based on their support of President Trump, not whether or not they are a reliable site.

 

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

47 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

You still on it, Doc?

 

No need at present.

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Considered. Rejected as unfounded and unnecessarily argumentative.  

 

Your interpretation of my comments is your burden to shoulder, and I am completely comfortable with that. 

 

As to your final comment in particular, condescending and presumptuous. 

 

 

Words matter, according to your side of things.  Not so fun when literalism is the sword and not the shield. 

[DFT]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Words matter, according to your side of things.  Not so fun when literalism is the sword and not the shield. 

Is saying “your side of things” referring to the aisle?  Is it the political aisle by chance?  Ok cool, don’t forget about the independents.  They matter as much as words.   

[Tiberius]

Trump respects no one unless they are rich and powerful. 

 

No way he respects poor soldiers. No way 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Words matter, according to your side of things.  Not so fun when literalism is the sword and not the shield. 

You've progressed from attempting a half-hearted characterization to making Gladiator references that do not apply.  

 

But, since we're just making stuff up, uh, it's not fun neither when you try and beat plowshares into beer steins. 

9 minutes ago, DFT said:

Is saying “your side of things” referring to the aisle?  Is it the political aisle by chance?  Ok cool, don’t forget about the independents.  They matter as much as words.   

I think he means because I was raised Catholic.  Or, not.  Context matters. 

[SectionC3]

24 minutes ago, DFT said:

Is saying “your side of things” referring to the aisle?  Is it the political aisle by chance?  Ok cool, don’t forget about the independents.  They matter as much as words.   

 

Hoax.  It’s a “trump/pro-lie/anti-rule of law” crowd” and the “rule of law/pro-truth” crowd.  A stark, or black-and-white, or binary divide, if you will.  

17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You've progressed from attempting a half-hearted characterization to making Gladiator references that do not apply.  

 

But, since we're just making stuff up, uh, it's not fun neither when you try and beat plowshares into beer steins. 

I think he means because I was raised Catholic.  Or, not.  Context matters. 

 

Hoax.  I didn’t make a Gladiator reference yet. The “sword” and “shield” dichotomy pre-existed Gladiator in the law.   But Gladiator is a good movie.  Strength and honor!

[SectionC3]

3 hours ago, DFT said:

You want me to show the end results of a potential investigation?  Like...  You want me to tell you who’s guilty before the investigation is even concluded?  Hmm...  That sounds dangerously un-American, even for a socialist such as yourself.  Oh C-section...   That’s where your slow thread pull lead???   I’m very disappointed that you couldn’t be a little more creative.  

 

Let’s let your attorney general take the lead on your request to specifically name at least “2” generals that are presently guilty of treasonous acts.  You see, we have a judicial system designed to investigate matters like these.  Once they discover, I’m sure they’ll disclose. I understand your nervousness though.  Up until the last few years, I wouldn’t have trusted them much myself.  May your day be filled with Jesus!

 

 

 

 

Last I checked side means a position to the left or right?  So if we’re speaking about bi-partisan political aisles, are we to ignore the independent vote?  Because that would mean 3.  Those darned alternative facts.  
 

Again, I’ve enjoyed your slow road to nowhere, C.  Back to the “herpe filter” with you.  

Sorry but I gotta invoke Rule #2 here.  You said, and I’ll paraphrase, generals are profiteering from war.  I still haven’t seen any evidence from you to back that up.   Please how your work, sir. 

 

Also, FYI, the judicial system doesn’t “investigate matters like these.”  Typically law enforcement handles issues of that nature.  But this is Donald Trump’s America, so maybe you have a point on that one.  

[DFT]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Sorry but I gotta invoke Rule #2 here.  You said, and I’ll paraphrase, generals are profiteering from war.  I still haven’t seen any evidence from you to back that up.   Please how your work, sir. 

 

Also, FYI, the judicial system doesn’t “investigate matters like these.”  Typically law enforcement handles issues of that nature.  But this is Donald Trump’s America, so maybe you have a point on that one.  

Hoax!

 

Nothing you said has truth in it.  You’re awarded no points.

 

Words matter.  

[SectionC3]

Just now, DFT said:

Hoax!

 

Nothing you said has truth in it.  You’re awarded no points.

 

Words matter.  

 

I don’t see any evidence of Rule #2 compliance there. Thank you in advance for your anticipated Rule #2 cooperation.