Jump to content

John Kelly Refutes That Trump Called Soldiers Losers


Kemp

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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.  

 

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!

On that we agree.  I particularly enjoyed Commodus being sent to his maker, though I thought his sister's speech was a little smarmy given that she preached strength and honor in the Gladiator pit.  On the other hand, she was pretty nice looking so I got past it rather quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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!

 

Now we're using a single event from 50 years ago to excuse what's been happening to journalism in the last 4 years?

 

BTW, what did POTUS and Veep know, and when did they instruct it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

REMINDER:

 

 

 

 

 

John Kelly denied a part of the story?  He was, after all, you know, there with Trump at Arlington.  So it would be pretty easy for him to deny if that part of the story is false.  But he hasn’t.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

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?

 

One of the easiest way to spot someone unable to think for themselves is to wait for them to explain how anonymous sources can absolutely confirm anonymous sources.

 

Take that plan to court one day. Explain to the judge that three anonymous people who refuse to show up in court on your behalf believe you are innocent of your charges, and you have another anonymous person who refuses to show up to court on your behalf to confirm the three anonymous people who refuse to show up in court on your behalf.

 

I rest my case, your honor! :lol:

 

You want me to believe anonymous sources? Make their names public and have them explain their details; where they were, who they were with, and specifically when it happened. We know the story is a hoax because those details keep getting corrected and the sources are STILL anonymous.

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

John Kelly denied a part of the story?  He was, after all, you know, there with Trump at Arlington.

 So it would be pretty easy for him to deny if that part of the story is false.  But he hasn’t.  

 

Nor has he confirmed.

 

But you still believe unconfirmed BS, because it fits your bias.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

One of the easiest way to spot someone unable to think for themselves is to wait for them to explain how anonymous sources can absolutely confirm anonymous sources.

 

Take that plan to court one day. Explain to the judge that three anonymous people who refuse to show up in court on your behalf believe you are innocent of your charges, and you have another anonymous person who refuses to show up to court on your behalf to confirm the three anonymous people who refuse to show up in court on your behalf.

 

I rest my case, your honor! :lol:

 

You want me to believe anonymous sources? Make their names public and have them explain their details; where they were, who they were with, and specifically when it happened. We know the story is a hoax because those details keep getting corrected and the sources are STILL anonymous.

 

 

 

By that logic we should all ignore you because you’re anonymous here.  I mean, we probably should ignore you anyway given the absurdity of some of the things you say.  But your anonymity alone might do the trick and allow us to avoid reading your posts.  

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

Nor has he confirmed.

 

But you still believe unconfirmed BS, because it fits your bias.

 

 

 

Hmmm . . . So, by not confirming, the allows the story to spread.  But he could simply deny, and therefore squelch the story (assuming it is false).  Seems to me that speaking the truth in this instance is to, among other things, stay silent.  Which is exactly what he has done.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

By that logic we should all ignore you because you’re anonymous here.  I mean, we probably should ignore you anyway given the absurdity of some of the things you say.  But your anonymity alone might do the trick and allow us to avoid reading your posts.  

 

Hmmm . . . So, by not confirming, the allows the story to spread.  But he could simply deny, and therefore squelch the story (assuming it is false).  Seems to me that speaking the truth in this instance is to, among other things, stay silent.  Which is exactly what he has done.  

Hoax!

 

No proof in anything you’ve just stated.  “Seems to me” is not a good way to show your work that your statement is fact-based.  I award you no points (style nor substance).  Words matter.
 

back to the loch with you, Nessie...

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DFT said:

Hoax!

 

No proof in anything you’ve just stated.  “Seems to me” is not a good way to show your work that your statement is fact-based.  I award you no points (style nor substance).  Words matter.
 

back to the loch with you, Nessie...

Hmmm . . . How does one support an opinion such as the one I expressed?  I’m going to have to Rule #2 your contention that I could have supported my contention with Rule #2 facts.  Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Hmmm . . . How does one support an opinion such as the one I expressed?  I’m going to have to Rule #2 your contention that I could have supported my contention with Rule #2 facts.  Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. 

Fake news!

 

asking your audience for clarity on how to follow the set of rules you’re telling others to follow voids your contention beyond the needed and/ or necessary date of your contentions inception, most notably because only members of Antifa would still be reading at this point.

 

 


 

yep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DFT said:

Fake news!

 

asking your audience for clarity on how to follow the set of rules you’re telling others to follow voids your contention beyond the needed and/ or necessary date of your contentions inception, most notably because only members of Antifa would still be reading at this point.

 

 


 

yep

 

All I got out of that was your inability to comply with Rule #2.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Nor has he confirmed.

 

But you still believe unconfirmed BS, because it fits your bias.

 

 

 

And which is more likely:

 

a guy that can't stand 45 knowing a negative story about him is false keeping his mouth shut allowing the story to fester and therefore hurt 45 in the eyes of low capacity for logic voters; or

 

a guy that can't stand 45 knowing a negative story about him is true keeping his mouth shut preventing the story from gaining momentum and therefore hurting 45 moreso?

 

Why ever might General Kelly want to sit this one out?  Hmmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

And which is more likely:

 

a guy that can't stand 45 knowing a negative story about him is false keeping his mouth shut allowing the story to fester and therefore hurt 45 in the eyes of low capacity for logic voters; or

 

a guy that can't stand 45 knowing a negative story about him is true keeping his mouth shut preventing the story from gaining momentum and therefore hurting 45 moreso?

 

Why ever might General Kelly want to sit this one out?  Hmmmm...

So you think Kelly is in on the “fix”?  Interesting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

One of the easiest way to spot someone unable to think for themselves is to wait for them to explain how anonymous sources can absolutely confirm anonymous sources.

 

Take that plan to court one day. Explain to the judge that three anonymous people who refuse to show up in court on your behalf believe you are innocent of your charges, and you have another anonymous person who refuses to show up to court on your behalf to confirm the three anonymous people who refuse to show up in court on your behalf.

 

I rest my case, your honor! :lol:

 

You want me to believe anonymous sources? Make their names public and have them explain their details; where they were, who they were with, and specifically when it happened. We know the story is a hoax because those details keep getting corrected and the sources are STILL anonymous.

 

 

Stop pretending like you actually care about the sources. What difference would it actually make?

We've already seen this president embroiled in more scandals than one can count and regardless of the amount of proof or sources that have come forward, Trump supporters just kick the can down the road and come up with more and more excuses.

If the sources were Mike Pence, Steve Mnuchin, and Ivanka, they'd probably just all become libtard liars exaggerating a "joke out of context". If Trump himself was the source, it would become part of his grand plan to subvert the mainstream media. It's amazing how I've never seen a trump supporter hold him to task for literally anything. Say what you will about the democrats, but at least they generally speak out when their people do wrong.

Edited by BullBuchanan
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

Stop pretending like you actually care about the sources. What difference would it actually make?

We've already seen this president embroiled in more scandals than one can count and regardless of the amount of proof of sources that have come forward, Trump supporters just kick the can down the road and come up with more and more excuses.

If the sources were Mike Pence, Steve Mnuchin, and Ivanka, they'd probably just all become libtard liars exaggerating a "joke out of context". If Trump himself was the source, it would become part of his grand plan to subvert the mainstream media. It's amazing how I've never seen a trump supporter hold him to task for literally anything. Say what you will about the democrats, but at least they generally speak out when their people do wrong.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one...

 

A politician walks into a beauty salon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

You're using a story of someone getting dragged through the mud as evidence of them not getting dragged through the mud?

Top 30 Bold Move Cotton Strategy GIFs | Find the best GIF on Gfycat

Adorable take....

 

No wonder you’re a frequent Airbnb’s of the board’s ignore list.  You never disappoint.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DFT said:

Adorable take....

 

No wonder you’re a frequent Airbnb’s of the board’s ignore list.  You never disappoint.  

Am I wrong or do you just not understand what I said? You used the Pelosi story as evidence to refute my claim that democrats hold their people's feet to the fire and her haircut has been getting national play for a week. She's getting ***** roasted over it. It's literally the exact opposite of what you were trying to project.

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Am I wrong or do you just not understand what I said? You used the Pelosi story as evidence to refute my claim that democrats hold their people's feet to the fire and her haircut has been getting national play for a week. She's getting ***** roasted over it. It's literally the exact opposite of what you were trying to project.

In case you need further evidence, look no further than democratic mayors and police chiefs in Buffalo, Rochester, Portland, Seattle, St Louis, etc. They are all being held accountable.

This guy also says hello.
image.jpeg.a3ec6efd212c379d7fb2a9ec407ce7c7.jpeg

Edited by BullBuchanan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Am I wrong or do you just not understand what I said? You used the Pelosi story as evidence to refute my claim that democrats hold their people's feet to the fire and her haircut has been getting national play for a week. She's getting ***** roasted over it. It's literally the exact opposite of what you were trying to project.

In case you need further evidence, look no further than democratic mayors and police chiefs in Buffalo, Rochester, Portland, Seattle, St Louis, etc. They are all being held accountable.

This guy also says hello.
image.jpeg.a3ec6efd212c379d7fb2a9ec407ce7c7.jpeg


Yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

So you think Kelly is in on the “fix”?  Interesting.  


Not what was said.  But your response which intentionally removes any nuance from a position you disagree with is your standard MO.

 

Really don't have the time nor inclination to continue playing your petty games.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:


Not what was said.  But your response which intentionally removes any nuance from a position you disagree with is your standard MO.

 

Really don't have the time nor inclination to continue playing your petty games.

 

Neither the time nor the inclination would be the proper way to say that.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

We've already seen this president embroiled in more scandals than one can count...

 

All of them anonymously sourced...all of them ultimately debunked...because all of them are fake stories meant to cover the fact that the left has literally no idea how to run a campaign on policy. They have a candidate who pukes tapioca every time he tries to read a teleprompter and a VP who is so unpopular, the lead story about her is her choice of shoes.

 

 

And yet with this constant onslaught of anonymous assaults on Trump, Biden's lead continues to shrink and Trump's approval numbers remain above Obama's at this point in his presidency.

 

People who can think for themselves would at least ask themselves why this is happening. But people who can't think for themselves try, like you, to explain that with all these scandals, they simply MUST be true because there are so many!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

All of them anonymously sourced...all of them ultimately debunked...because all of them are fake stories meant to cover the fact that the left has literally no idea how to run a campaign on policy. They have a candidate who pukes tapioca every time he tries to read a teleprompter and a VP who is so unpopular, the lead story about her is her choice of shoes.

 

 

And yet with this constant onslaught of anonymous assaults on Trump, Biden's lead continues to shrink and Trump's approval numbers remain above Obama's at this point in his presidency.

 

People who can think for themselves would at least ask themselves why this is happening. But people who can't think for themselves try, like you, to explain that with all these scandals, they simply MUST be true because there are so many!

 

 

Rule #2 on the shoe story.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

Stop pretending like you actually care about the sources. What difference would it actually make?

We've already seen this president embroiled in more scandals than one can count and regardless of the amount of proof or sources that have come forward, Trump supporters just kick the can down the road and come up with more and more excuses.

If the sources were Mike Pence, Steve Mnuchin, and Ivanka, they'd probably just all become libtard liars exaggerating a "joke out of context". If Trump himself was the source, it would become part of his grand plan to subvert the mainstream media. It's amazing how I've never seen a trump supporter hold him to task for literally anything. Say what you will about the democrats, but at least they generally speak out when their people do wrong.

Well, you are arguing with a complete lunatic. 

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

Goebbels would be so proud of the left.

Oh really? Seems like he would work perfectly for Trump is spreading lies and misinformation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DFT said:

Stop me if you’ve heard this one...

 

A politician walks into a beauty salon...

I've got that beat. Did you hear the one about the former VP who is running for President joking around with Ukraine officials about firing their chief prosecutor in order to receive 1 billion in loan guarantees from the U.S.? It had them all in stitches. 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...