John Kelly on the Fallen Soldier Calls made by Trump. [W:33]

[Paperview]

The thing is Trump has made many of these calls and all the left can complain about is ONE call where not only wasn't it recorded but the Democratic resistance congresswoman admitted to not hearing the whole conversation, only the part that she wanted to politicize while the family was grieving. On the other hand, we have had numerous other Gold Star Widow calls where the families sang Trump's praises and even one of those that was actually recorded. So, Democrats, as usual, are about 1 out of 100 and trying to make the most out of that one.

You have more fingers and toes than Trump has made calls.

 

[Paperview]

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

I find the idea of speaker phone very disrespectful. ...

You don't ride in cars much, do you?

 

[Bodi]

Explain to me how it's disrespectful for e.g. a mother, with three kids, allowing those kids to hear the POTUS call and offer his condolences. I'd think it would be a fantastic memory for many kids, just for example, and meaningful to them to know he was important enough for POTUS to call. So why is it different for a mother, or sister, or close friend?

And IMO, a POTUS not agreeing to let other family/loved ones listen would make him an insensitive asshole. It's about the family, not what POTUS might prefer.



I've defended Trump's call many times. That he made it is the 99% answer for me - the 1% is far less important than he made the effort.

No offense or anything, but we're just 180 degrees apart on this.

I am not sure that we are... my objection is the anger and attention that this call is getting. He called to talk to the widow/family. His intention was to be good. He doesn't word something just the way somebody else wants it and this congresswoman makes a big thing out of it. If she actually cared she would not direct national attention on her "friend" and she would not be stealing time away from their grieving. The President is not articulate. Pretty much everybody knows that... we also realize that there are real issues that he is involved in that do deserve negative attention.

 

[Moderate Right]

You have more fingers and toes than Trump has made calls.

Doesn't change the fact that we have just ONE that Democrats are complaining about and that one is only based on the interpretations and opinions of a PARTIAL call, by members of the Democratic resistance. And, we have several who have sung Trump praises for their calls, including one where the whole conversation was recorded.

 

[Tangmo]

Which of these 3 statements is unlike the other 2?
(A) "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt."
(B) "he knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens, it hurts anyway,"
(C) "he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway."

Answer and we can take it from there.
Why are you so afraid to answer?

May I call you Bubba? You need anyway to recognize no poster is obligated by the rules to reply to any other poster at any time. You'd need to know further that this poster does not respond to illegitimate or dishonorable questions.

Implied accusation of being a Nazi.

Please provide evidence that I am a Nazi or cease.

In all this time and despite your thousands of posts to me I hadn't recognized you to be touchy or sensitive over there gunnery sergeant. That is because you are neither. So if you take an inference from my statement then I can only take that into a consideration. My only point sergeant is that you are determined, driven, compelled by some force deep inside to impose your distorted will. No matter how long it may take and chiefly by means of character assassination.

Carry on.

Notice A, B, and C are in quotes.
I trust you know what quotes mean.
In this case it means it isn't a loaded question.
Very simple ...

Which of these 3 statements is unlike the other 2?
(A) "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt."
(B) "he knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens, it hurts anyway,"
(C) "he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway."

All it takes is familiarity with the language and the implied or direct meaning of words.
Is that in your comfort zone?

The unhappy and futile experience you are having is the defeat of the will. Repeatedly. Tough to take for sure eh. It occurs because you have learned nothing.

Carry on.

 

[Fledermaus]

In all this time and despite your thousands of posts to me I hadn't recognized you to be touchy or sensitive over there gunnery sergeant. That is because you are neither. So if you take an inference from my statement then I can only take that into a consideration. My only point sergeant is that you are determined, driven, compelled by some force deep inside to impose your distorted will. No matter how long it may take and chiefly by means of character assassinatiion

We both know you never retract your libel.

At least you can cease your libel.

Nazi. Support or cease your libel.

 

[Parrish]

I find the idea of speaker phone very disrespectful. The President is calling to speak to the widow. If he agreed to it that was foolish and if he did not then I am not sure I believe any of it. If he did say those words the next thing that matters is the intent. If somebody said to me, "he knew what he signed up for" I would not freak. It is not hte greatest choice of words but it is not malicious in the entirety of ALL of the words that he said. The soldier did know he signed up to fight and possibly die. Personally I would probably shrug my shoulders and agree... "yeah Mr. President, it is a very dangerous job".

The family and guest were in the car. The sergeant who received the call is the one who put the call on speaker. If only 45 had have imagined that the widow was his daughter or wife and spoken to her the way he'd have wanted someone to comfort them. He blew it. He should at his advanced age have learned that.

 

[Tangmo]

We both know you never retract your libel.

At least you can cease your libel.

Nazi. Support or cease your libel.

Who's the "we" here?

There's no "we" here trooper.

As you storm your failed will and driven way through the threads without limit or end.

The Shadow.

 

[Fledermaus]

Who's the "we" here?

There's no "we" here trooper.

As you storm your failed will and driven way through the threads without limit or end.

The Shadow.

We. You and me.

WE both know you won't retract your libel.

 

[Tangmo]

We. You and me.

WE both know you won't retract your libel.

That is authoritarian. It is arbitrary. It is false.

You suffer from the long term defeat of the will. The failure of being obsessively driven by whatever twisted force exists inside.

The Eternal Shadow.

 

[Tangmo]

We. You and me.

WE both know you won't retract your libel.

That is authoritarian. It is arbitrary. It is false.

You suffer from the long term defeat of the will. The failure of being obsessively driven by whatever twisted force exists inside.

The Eternal Shadow.

 

[Bodi]

The family and guest were in the car. The sergeant who received the call is the one who put the call on speaker. If only 45 had have imagined that the widow was his daughter or wife and spoken to her the way he'd have wanted someone to comfort them. He blew it. He should at his advanced age have learned that.

Yes. He blew a personal phone call.

Somebody inform the military... it is Armageddon.

 

[bubbabgone]

May I call you Bubba? You need anyway to recognize no poster is obligated by the rules to reply to any other poster at any time. You'd need to know further that this poster does not respond to illegitimate or dishonorable questions.

...

The unhappy and futile experience you are having is the defeat of the will. Repeatedly. Tough to take for sure eh. It occurs because you have learned nothing.

Carry on.

Absolutely ... call me Bubba or Bub or whatever you're comfortable with that won't get you fragged.
You're certainly not obligated to answer even though it's thread-on-point but you must realize anyone can conclude there must be a reason you cut & run from the answer.

So what's "illegitimate or dishonorable" about the pop quiz?

Which of these 3 statements is unlike the other 2?
(A) "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt."
(B) "he knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens, it hurts anyway,"
(C) "he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway."

You can't possibly be confused so you're obviously afraid of something.

I can think of 2 reasons you'd avoid answering.
- If you tell the truth, the narrative you endorse is exposed.
- If you lie, it'd be obvious, you'd look foolish, and the narrative you endorse is exposed.

So forget the narrative, tell the truth if only for the sake of your self-respect.

 

[Fledermaus]

That is authoritarian. It is arbitrary. It is false.

It was "authoritarian"? 1. favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. What does your inability to retract your libel have to do with obedience to authority, especially that of the government?

It was "authoritarian"? 1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. What does your inability to retract your libel have to do with random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system?

As to your claim it is false. It is true...

WE both know you won't retract your libel.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes. He blew a personal phone call.

Somebody inform the military... it is Armageddon.

 

[bubbabgone]

It was "authoritarian"? 1. favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. What does your inability to retract your libel have to do with obedience to authority, especially that of the government?

It was "authoritarian"? 1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. What does your inability to retract your libel have to do with random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system?

As to your claim it is false. It is true...

WE both know you won't retract your libel.

It's like watching someone try to wriggle out of a situation of their own making, isn't it?
Is it cruel to keep poking it?

 

[Tangmo]

Absolutely ... call me Bubba or Bub or whatever you're comfortable with that won't get you fragged.
You're certainly not obligated to answer even though it's thread-on-point but you must realize anyone can conclude there must be a reason you cut & run from the answer.

So what's "illegitimate or dishonorable" about the pop quiz?

Which of these 3 statements is unlike the other 2?
(A) "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt."
(B) "he knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens, it hurts anyway,"
(C) "he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway."

You can't possibly be confused so you're obviously afraid of something.

I can think of 2 reasons you'd avoid answering.
- If you tell the truth, the narrative you endorse is exposed.
- If you lie, it'd be obvious, you'd look foolish, and the narrative you endorse is exposed.

So forget the narrative, tell the truth if only for the sake of your self-respect.

My self-respect is defined by the self-respecter himself and I have my self-respect fully intact thx. You do in fact serve to reinforce my self-respect. And it feels good over here thx again.


All the same kindly run the first sentence of your post past me again plse thx. The off topic stuff about "fragged."

It could sound menacing if you'd know what I mean. I'd add that during my four years of honorable active duty service as an officer (Army; Infantry) there was no such possibility or thought in my unit concerning any member of the regiment on either end of the "fragging" fad among EP of the time, i.e., the Vietnam War. The battalion of the infantry regiment I was assigned to was stateside only anyway (continuously since 1948).

I have no way to know whether you Bubba ever did any fragging or had thought about it during your time-in. This is presuming of course that you did serve in the armed forces and presuming further that your service was honorable in its character. What I do know is that you Bubba are mentioning fragging here, now, at this time, and that fragging involves a hand grenade, physical harm or injury to include possible death executed maliciously by a solider against a fellow soldier of your own unit who is a superior nco or officer.

Regardless Bubba if it were you and I, I'd sell you back the farm again before you'd get your finger around the pin. I'd look you directly between the eyes quicker than a flash. I refer of course to your derailing of the thread and topic and of evacuating you from the premises.


R.S.V.P. After all, posting is for free. Right?

 

[bubbabgone]

My self-respect is defined by the self-respecter himself and I have my self-respect fully intact thx. You do in fact serve to reinforce my self-respect. And it feels good over here thx again.


All the same kindly run the first sentence of your post past me again plse thx. The off topic stuff about "fragged."

It could sound menacing if you'd know what I mean. I'd add that during my four years of honorable active duty service as an officer (Army; Infantry) there was no such possibility or thought in my unit concerning any member of the regiment on either end of the "fragging" fad among EP of the time, i.e., the Vietnam War. The battalion of the infantry regiment I was assigned to was stateside only anyway (continuously since 1948).

I have no way to know whether you Bubba ever did any fragging or had thought about it during your time-in. This is presuming of course that you did serve in the armed forces and presuming further that your service was honorable in its character. What I do know is that you Bubba are mentioning fragging here, now, at this time, and that fragging involves a hand grenade, physical harm or injury to include possible death executed maliciously by a solider against a fellow soldier of your own unit who is a superior nco or officer.

Regardless Bubba if it were you and I, I'd sell you back the farm again before you'd get your finger around the pin. I'd look you directly between the eyes and quicker than flash. I refer of course to your derailing of the thread and topic and of evacuating you from the premises.


R.S.V.P. After all, posting is for free. Right?

Which of these 3 statements is unlike the other 2?
(A) "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt."
(B) "he knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens, it hurts anyway,"
(C) "he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway."

 

[Tangmo]

Which of these 3 statements is unlike the other 2?
(A) "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt."
(B) "he knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens, it hurts anyway,"
(C) "he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway."

Yes the above is your original post of the post that you have since posted numerous times thx. The original post was of course absent the additional na na fraidy cat stuff you had added to it in the subsequent posts.

So now that we are back to square one, I do accordingly post again my original reply....


My advice offered to benefit you is never to take the Miller Analogies Test. The evidence indicates you'd find it to be a ball buster. A disaster in fact.

While the matter does not present analogies your post does in fact present the same statement. It is the same statement by Myeshia Johnson whom you presumably quote without documentation; and the statement is no different from the statement by the mother of Sgt. Johnson, Cowenda Jones-Johnson; nor is the statement any different from the statement by the Member of Congress Frederica Wilson. Trump meanwhile is the guy ordering the scrambled rush mailing of condolence letters to the families of several of the sailors lost in the USS McCain collision in August. Letters dated October 18.

Kelly has demonstrated a serious failure of executive leadership in respect of letters of support from Potus to grieving military families who have lost their loved one on active duty to the country. If Kelly can't get this right what can he get right.

Kelly screwed the pooch on CW Wilson and the dedication of the FBI building. CW Wilson initiated a minor miracle to get the building named after the two particular agents killed in the line of duty. CW Wilson did it in time for the ceremony at the urgent request of FBI. It is beginning to look now like Kelly can't find his way to the men's room despite being handed a floor diagram. We have to think hard about the fact Kelly is now Trump's defender. And that we are advised by the White House not to question a Marine four-star general.

...............

So yep, that again is my original reply to your original (unfettered) post. Posters know btw that the rightwhinge can't argue so the whingenuts repeat their posts and repeat 'em interminably. Youse guyz post the same-same posts as if none of us over here had ever refuted 'em and in fact demolished 'em.

Carry on.

 

[Tangmo]

It was "authoritarian"? 1. favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. What does your inability to retract your libel have to do with obedience to authority, especially that of the government?

It was "authoritarian"? 1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. What does your inability to retract your libel have to do with random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system?

As to your claim it is false. It is true...

WE both know you won't retract your libel.

You'd need to specify.

If you can remember that is.

I haven't been served with any libel papers btw even though you've been derailing threads for free over the past 11 months. Mr. Off-Topic Fledermaus. (My posts to the thread about Kelly the rightwhingenut who shines Trump's shoes pertain to the thread topic and this thread only btw.)

Proceed.


R.S.V.P. After all, posting is for free. Right? And you are going to have a "we" here irrespective of my assertion of my individual integrity which is apart from your spiraling descent. You continue to try to impose your will no matter what.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes the above is your original post of the post that you have since posted numerous times thx. The original post was of course absent the additional na na fraidy cat stuff you had added to it in the subsequent posts.

So now that we are back to square one, I do accordingly post again my original reply....


My advice offered to benefit you is never to take the Miller Analogies Test. The evidence indicates you'd find it to be a ball buster. A disaster in fact.

While the matter does not present analogies your post does in fact present the same statement. It is the same statement by Myeshia Johnson whom you presumably quote without documentation; and the statement is no different from the statement by the mother of Sgt. Johnson, Cowenda Jones-Johnson; nor is the statement any different from the statement by the Member of Congress Frederica Wilson. Trump meanwhile is the guy ordering the scrambled rush mailing of condolence letters to the families of several of the sailors lost in the USS McCain collision in August. Letters dated October 18.

Kelly has demonstrated a serious failure of executive leadership in respect of letters of support from Potus to grieving military families who have lost their loved one on active duty to the country. If Kelly can't get this right what can he get right.

Kelly screwed the pooch on CW Wilson and the dedication of the FBI building. CW Wilson initiated a minor miracle to get the building named after the two particular agents killed in the line of duty. CW Wilson did it in time for the ceremony at the urgent request of FBI. It is beginning to look now like Kelly can't find his way to the men's room despite being handed a floor diagram. We have to think hard about the fact Kelly is now Trump's defender. And that we are advised by the White House not to question a Marine four-star general.

...............

So yep, that again is my original reply to your original (unfettered) post. Posters know btw that the rightwhinge can't argue so the whingenuts repeat their posts and repeat 'em interminably. Youse guyz post the same-same posts as if none of us over here had ever refuted 'em and in fact demolished 'em.

Carry on.

Another Rant-A-Thon...

You were right bubbabgone.....

Wriggling it is.

---------

Tangmo, is this another case of your hatred for real veterans shining through?

 

[Fledermaus]

You'd need to specify.

You'd need to stop the intentional ignorance.

But what is another dishonest tactic?

 

[Tangmo]

Another Rant-A-Thon...

You were right bubbabgone.....

Wriggling it is.

---------

Tangmo, is this another case of your hatred for real veterans shining through?

You'd need to specify.

If you were to specify you of course would be off topic. We know you haven't ever hesitated to derail every thread I've posted to for the past 11 months consecutively.

I reiterate there is no "we" here as you would will it to be.Nor is the thread and topic about "real" veterans as you would parse the 20 million of us.

You have failed the past 11 months to realize your triumph of the will. Yet you march on.

 

[Tangmo]

<<snip>>

WE both know you won't retract your libel.

Despite your eternal assertions of your fierce and unrelenting will you can never establish a "we" here or in this. You cannot impose your will against me individually nor can you command me to obey your will or to submit to your will.

Despite your thousand posts trying specifically and singularly to willfully impose the false condition of a libel, you cannot realize your repeated and willful strong armed personal targeting.

You are in fact and only the DP epitome of the failure of the armband will. It failed in Charlottesville and it is a failure here too.

 

[Fledermaus]

Despite your eternal assertions of your fierce and unrelenting will you can never establish a "we" here or in this.

Why lie?

Post #459 CLEARLY establishes the we.

We. You and me.

WE both know you won't retract your libel.

We. You and me.

WE both know you won't retract your libel.