John Kelly Refutes That Trump Called Soldiers Losers

[BullBuchanan]

31 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Hang the toe tag, and slide this stiff into the drawer.

 

https://www.redstate.com/bradslager/2020/09/08/performing-an-autopsy-on-the-atlantic-expose-reveals-the-anatomy-of-a-manufactured-scandal/

 

 

 

 

That's what I think about anything from Redstate:
https://thebulwark.com/why-we-are-quitting-redstate/

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So you believe the generals are just out to make money for big corporations? Is that your opinion? 

Holy Crapazoley the lefty’s are pro-Military Industrial complex now too!!! 
 

Trump is the bestest ever.  

[IDBillzFan]

7 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's what I think about anything from Redstate:
https://thebulwark.com/why-we-are-quitting-redstate/

 

If I could get a nickel for every time a leftist's argument against a story begins and ends with "kill the messenger." 

 

At least next time, bring a source with real credibility...like The Lincoln Project or Jennifer Rubin. 

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

If I could get a nickel for every time a leftist's argument against a story begins and ends with "kill the messenger." 

 

At least next time, bring a source with real credibility...like The Lincoln Project or Jennifer Rubin. 

 

 

I mean, you cite disreputable sources and I don't know what you expect. It's like none of you ever paid attention in school when they made you cite your sources. You get your news from what amounts to conspiracy blogs and propaganda sites.

Edited September 9, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[Tiberius]

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

Holy Crapazoley the lefty’s are pro-Military Industrial complex now too!!! 
 

Trump is the bestest ever.  

No seriously, you actually think Trump respects the men and women in uniform? 

 

Thats contridicted by every public utterances of the man. 

[IDBillzFan]

11 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I mean, you cite disreputable sources and I don't know what you expect. It's like none of you ever paid attention in school when they made you cite your sources. You get your news from what amounts to conspiracy blogs and propaganda sites.

 

Since your ability to think for yourself is jammed, let's try this: no one ever disputed the Trump military story because it came from The Atlantic. They disputed it because, unlike actual journalism which ALWAYS relies on identifiable sources, the Atlantic story had four anonymous sources ONLY.

 

If you took the time to read the Redstate article, you would find he lists ALL the NAMED sources who disputed the article while, simultaneously, reporting on how the architects ultimately started changing their story as facts from anonymous sources were all blown up by real people with real names and real dates.

 

Quote

While anonymous sourcing is indeed a key component in news gathering the problem that has mushroomed, especially over the past 4 years, is that the sources have become less the conduit to a report and now have become relied upon as the primary story. Case in point; the media insisted that Goldberg’s piece had become corroborated by James Laporta. Except his sources were also off the record. One is even described as a third hand witness — ‘’a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments.’’ Also revealing, after saying that his sources confirmed The Atlantic article ”in its entirety’’, Laporta’s own article cites that they only ‘’confirmed some of the remarks.’’

 

The next thing you know, you hear talking heads explaining that it doesn't matter if it's proven that Trump said these things because some people can imagine that he actually would say these things, and that's close enough for most leftists like Kemp, etc.

 

Ultimately it becomes a battle of the Atlantic no longer trying to defend its own story but rather, predictably and embarrassingly, explaining that the people who were on the record as saying they were there and didn't hear Trump[ say those things aren't enough to suggest Trump didn't say it.

 

In other words, ignore those real people with real names...listen to these anonymous people who are too afraid to give their name. 

 

Quote

 

One final flailing effort can be seen in the Washington Post. This morning Aaron Blake was desperately performing CPR on the story. ”First, it’s worth noting that “I did not hear” is not the same as “it didn’t happen.” It’s admittedly difficult to offer a full denial unless you were with Trump the entire time, but many of the denials have been in this vein, which technically allows that the comments might have transpired while the deniers were out of earshot.’’

 

This is the level the press has resorted to on the matter. They no longer have facts and witness testimony to rely upon for a proven story, so the fallback is essentially saying, ”Well…none of this completely disproves it might have happened…’’ So we are now in the age of reporting on rumors, and it is up to others to disprove the negative, as reported in the mainstream press.

 

 

Next time, think first, read second, post third. You've been doing it backwards and it shows.

Edited September 9, 2020 by IDBillzFan

[Doc]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Sorry didn’t read that was busy munching on hydroxychloroquine.  

 

Wow.  I'm surprised you didn't die from just typing the name out.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No seriously, you actually think Trump respects the men and women in uniform? 

 

Thats contridicted by every public utterances of the man. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Since your ability to think for yourself is jammed, let's try this: no one ever disputed the Trump military story because it came from The Atlantic. They disputed it because, unlike actual journalism which ALWAYS relies on identifiable sources, the Atlantic story had four anonymous sources ONLY.

 

If you took the time to read the Redstate article, you would find he lists ALL the NAMED sources who disputed the article while, simultaneously, reporting on how the architects ultimately started changing their story as facts from anonymous sources were all blown up by real people with real names and real dates.

 

 

The next thing you know, you hear talking heads explaining that it doesn't matter if it's proven that Trump said these things because some people can imagine that he actually would say these things, and that's close enough for most leftists like Kemp, etc.

 

Ultimately it becomes a battle of the Atlantic no longer trying to defend its own story but rather, predictably and embarrassingly, explaining that the people who were on the record as saying they were there and didn't hear Trump[ say those things aren't enough to suggest Trump didn't say it.

 

In other words, ignore those real people with real names...listen to these anonymous people who are too afraid to give their name. 

 

 

Next time, think first, read second, post third. You've been doing it backwards and it shows.

Do you not understand why people report things anonymously?

Maybe this will help you understand:

[IDBillzFan]

5 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Do you not understand why people report things anonymously?

 

Do you know the Atlantic reason for reporting their story anonymously?

 

The sources didn't want people to be mean to them.

 

So, um, I'll see your Vindman and raise you a "boo-freaking-hoo."

[BullBuchanan]

4 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Do you know the Atlantic reason for reporting their story anonymously?

 

The sources didn't want people to be mean to them.

 

So, um, I'll see your Vindman and raise you a "boo-freaking-hoo."

And yet the sources were confirmed by Fox and CNN. Who else would have to confirm the information before you'd agree? Is Breitbart the bar, or would they just be a bunch of libtards then?

The editor in Chief of the Atlantic is putting his entire reputation on the line for a pretty small story. Does that mean nothing?

Edited September 9, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Wow.  I'm surprised you didn't die from just typing the name out.

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

4 hours ago, DFT said:

By your intentional absence of logic there’s no such thing as war profiteering then.  Just a made up term, right?  Lockheed Martin isn’t a 40+ Billion dollar supplier of all things war for America.  There’s no way they’d be incentivized to facilitate war mongering among politicians and high-ranking military officials who despite earning a streamlined salary, now represent the wealthiest and most powerful in America somehow.  

Let’s lob in a softball, shall we?  One that shows this isn’t a partisan issue but a bi-partisan act of corruption in the swamp...

 

 

Dick Cheney.  

Hmmm ... so,  who is it engaging in profiteering?  The generals or their civilian superiors?  You seem to think it’s the civilians, but the chef thinks it’s the generals. I think we need to pick one.  
 

(And I wouldn’t argue with characterizing the Halliburton VP as a profiteer, but that’s a different issue for a different day.) 

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Since your ability to think for yourself is jammed, let's try this: no one ever disputed the Trump military story because it came from The Atlantic. They disputed it because, unlike actual journalism which ALWAYS relies on identifiable sources, the Atlantic story had four anonymous sources ONLY.

 

If you took the time to read the Redstate article, you would find he lists ALL the NAMED sources who disputed the article while, simultaneously, reporting on how the architects ultimately started changing their story as facts from anonymous sources were all blown up by real people with real names and real dates.

 

 

The next thing you know, you hear talking heads explaining that it doesn't matter if it's proven that Trump said these things because some people can imagine that he actually would say these things, and that's close enough for most leftists like Kemp, etc.

 

Ultimately it becomes a battle of the Atlantic no longer trying to defend its own story but rather, predictably and embarrassingly, explaining that the people who were on the record as saying they were there and didn't hear Trump[ say those things aren't enough to suggest Trump didn't say it.

 

In other words, ignore those real people with real names...listen to these anonymous people who are too afraid to give their name. 

 

 

Next time, think first, read second, post third. You've been doing it backwards and it shows.

Did you ever hear of Watergate? 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

Do you not understand why people report things anonymously?

Maybe this will help you understand:

He definitely never heard of watergate.  He won’t get this reference, either. 

[DFT]

9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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

Hmmm ... so,  who is it engaging in profiteering?  The generals or their civilian superiors?  You seem to think it’s the civilians, but the chef thinks it’s the generals. I think we need to pick one.  
 

(And I wouldn’t argue with characterizing the Halliburton VP as a profiteer, but that’s a different issue for a different day.) 

Did you ever hear of Watergate? 

Hoax!  
 

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

 

 

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, DFT said:

Hoax!  
 

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

 

 

Ahhh.  The student is trying to become the teacher.  An interesting application of “hoax.”  Flattery, if you will.  And also a hint if copying the libs to try to own the libs.  

4 minutes ago, DFT said:

Hoax!  
 

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

 

 

Also. How many sides does an aisle have?  I thought it was just two.  Maybe I have misconceived aisles.  

[DFT]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Ahhh.  The student is trying to become the teacher.  An interesting application of “hoax.”  Flattery, if you will.  And also a hint if copying the libs to try to own the libs.  

Also. How many sides does an aisle have?  I thought it was just two.  Maybe I have misconceived aisles.  

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.

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Ahhh.  The student is trying to become the teacher.  An interesting application of “hoax.”  Flattery, if you will.  And also a hint if copying the libs to try to own the libs.  

Also. How many sides does an aisle have?  I thought it was just two.  Maybe I have misconceived aisles.  

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.

Edited September 9, 2020 by DFT

[GG]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

) 

Did you ever hear of Watergate? 

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.  

[Hedge]

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

9 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

 

Things random users on twitter say for $1000, Alex.

 

Nice source.

[B-Man]

4 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's what I think about anything from Redstate:
https://thebulwark.com/why-we-are-quitting-redstate/

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 ?

 

 

[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.