B-Man Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago Quick reminder: none of these "leaks" being obsessed on prevented the mission from being a complete success. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 20 minutes ago, B-Man said: Well that went right over Homey's head. Sec Hegseth is using whataboutisms, which is most definitely problematic to some people, sometimes, on occasion. I'm told that analyzing the relative accuracy of media accounts using hindsight is bad, and everything printed by legacy media sources is always to be assumed 100% accurate...or some lady named Lara will most assuredly be looming. 2
4th&long Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 11 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Fingers crossed! It will just be another incompetent turd. That all trump surrounds himself with.
Roundybout Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 7 minutes ago, 4th&long said: It will just be another incompetent turd. That all trump surrounds himself with. Honestly I doubt Trump actually fires Hegseth for his actions. If he does get ousted, it will be because he’s making Trump look bad. 1
4th&long Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 'Full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon': Hegseth reportedly 'unlikely to remain in his role' https://flip.it/yV_07y These idiots on here defend him while trump is likely to fire him. They should feel stupid but the problem is they are too stupid to feel that way.
Roundybout Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago Just now, 4th&long said: 'Full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon': Hegseth reportedly 'unlikely to remain in his role' https://flip.it/yV_07y These idiots on here defend him while trump is likely to fire him. They should feel stupid but the problem is they are too stupid to feel that way. They like him because he hates trans people. Thats literally it. They smeared Kamala to hell and back because of that one picture of her with a glass of wine. No such campaign against the active alcoholic loser, though. Again, ask yourself why. 1
njbuff Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 2 minutes ago, Roundybout said: They like him because he hates trans people. Thats literally it. They smeared Kamala to hell and back because of that one picture of her with a glass of wine. No such campaign against the active alcoholic loser, though. Again, ask yourself why. So, Kamala got smeared simply because she had a glass of wine? She didn’t get smeared because she’s a fake, incompetent buffoon that shouldn’t be anywhere near public office? Sure. God you far woke leftists are so smooth-brained. 1
Roundybout Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 4 minutes ago, njbuff said: So, Kamala got smeared simply because she had a glass of wine? She didn’t get smeared because she’s a fake, incompetent buffoon that shouldn’t be anywhere near public office? Sure. God you far woke leftists are so smooth-brained. I’m sure you’ve forgotten the hypocrisy, but the GOP mercilessly smeared her as an alcoholic. https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/kamala-harris-alcholic-rumours-13839587.html/amp Vice President Popekiller still brings it up! https://nypost.com/2025/03/20/us-news/jd-vance-jokes-kamala-harris-had-four-shots-of-vodka-before-meetings-while-vp/ So yes, she was smeared for a glass of wine.
njbuff Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 2 minutes ago, Roundybout said: I’m sure you’ve forgotten the hypocrisy, but the GOP mercilessly smeared her as an alcoholic. https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/kamala-harris-alcholic-rumours-13839587.html/amp Vice President Popekiller still brings it up! https://nypost.com/2025/03/20/us-news/jd-vance-jokes-kamala-harris-had-four-shots-of-vodka-before-meetings-while-vp/ So yes, she was smeared for a glass of wine. She is a drunk, but she didn’t deserved to be smeared on that as LOTS of people drink. Because she is so incompetent, smearing her as a lush made it a lot easier. 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 25 minutes ago, 4th&long said: 'Full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon': Hegseth reportedly 'unlikely to remain in his role' https://flip.it/yV_07y These idiots on here defend him while trump is likely to fire him. They should feel stupid but the problem is they are too stupid to feel that way. One problem is the mission of these leftist news agencies is to publish stories derogatory to the administration. Not so much inform the public of the truth. Purposefully and curiously, these stories always seem to be provided to "journalist" from anonymous and unverified sourcing claiming improper actions. And many times either the journalist or the sources fabricate false claims and lie. So it shouldn't be a surprise this constant flow of anonymous stories are looked at with a degree of skepticism by a lot of posters. I think its fair to say that if the stories are true then the secretary should face discipline leading to dismissal. But if its not true then the journalists and the approving editors printing the story should be forced to reveal their sources (if any really exist) or face jail time. And actions should be taken against the offending news agencies or sites publishing false stories. Anonymous sources providing fake stories should also face the law. Anyone concerned primarily with the truth should see this as fair. Edited 3 hours ago by All_Pro_Bills 2
B-Man Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago HE’S APPARENTLY OVER THE TARGET: Is a Coup Against Pete Hegseth Brewing at the Pentagon? by Matt Margolis Something tells me that the liberal media is trying to force Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from the Pentagon. According to a report from Politico, the Pentagon has become a "chaotic" mess because of Hegseth’s alleged influence, and it’s becoming a problem for the administration. “It’s been a month of total chaos at the Pentagon. From leaks of sensitive operational plans to mass firings, the dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president — who deserves better from his senior leadership,” the article claims. “President Donald Trump has a strong record of holding his top officials to account. Given that, it’s hard to see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer.” It’s a claim so ludicrous that you almost have to appreciate the creative writing involved. What’s the evidence? A few anonymous complaints and a spin cycle that would make a laundromat envious. John Ullyot, the writer of the article, claims that he’s a Hegseth supporter, yet the Pentagon recently asked him to resign. So I’m sure he doesn’t have an axe to grind. But let’s take a look at what he’s claiming anyway. According to Ullyot, the Pentagon “is in disarray under Hegseth’s leadership.” Curiously, to prove his point, he cites the "Signalgate" kerfuffle as evidence of the chaos, not the successful mission against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Despite his repeated claims of supporting Hegseth, his narrative sounds like it was lifted straight from the Democrat playbook. I suspect he leans on his supposed backing of Hegseth not out of conviction, but as a shield to lend credibility to what amounts to a repackaged left-wing hit job on the Pentagon. https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/04/21/is-a-coup-against-pete-hegseth-brewing-in-the-pentagon-n4939078 1
Albwan Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago Lying comes so easy to these fools, pure evil. Only ones who gobbles the ***** they regurgitate is themselves. You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander. Options You've chosen to ignore content by Roundybout. Options You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander. Options 2
Roundybout Posted 57 minutes ago Posted 57 minutes ago 29 minutes ago, K D said: "Not enough wars! Fire everyone and let's start WW3!!!" What is the correlation here?
daz28 Posted 41 minutes ago Posted 41 minutes ago 8 hours ago, Doc said: Call it “spillage,” make sure it doesn’t happen (again) and move on. That's what you said last time. LOL
Doc Posted 38 minutes ago Posted 38 minutes ago 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: That's what you said last time. LOL No. I wasn't the one who used the term to excuse Biden's illegal possession of classified material. 1
daz28 Posted 38 minutes ago Posted 38 minutes ago 5 hours ago, Homelander said: Blaming everyone but himself for starting a Signal chat on his personal phone like the leak just magically happened on its own. For everyone saying they distrust the source, did this sound like a denial or an ad hominem attack? Be honest, and don't ad hominem attack me, like some have already done in this thread. Just now, Doc said: No. I wasn't the one who used the term to excuse Biden's illegal possession of classified material. I'm literally talking about the last signal chat screw up. I know you're a big Pete supporter, but I was just checking to see if this might be one of your rare moments of clarity. Clearly it is not. 1
Recommended Posts