John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

[ClosedCaption]

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol. Funny stuff.

 

[usmbguest5318]

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.

Few and far between are the individuals of whom I'm aware and who also entered military service "for any other reason than that they love this country." Most folks I know did it for one or several of the benefits military service offers -- the non-pay benefits, or the simple assurance of having a job, or some other non-patriotic reason.

"For any other reason than that they love this country" may explain why some individuals stay in the military and make a career out of it, and it's probably the reason some people enter it to begin with, but I think those folks are more the exception than the rule. But then, relative to the total quantity of people in the military, I know only a small quantity of them, and John Kelly without question knows far more of them than I. Be that as it is, it strains credulity to think pure patriotism and/or a sense of duty to country is ever the sole reason, as Kelly stated, though it may often be a reason.

 

[Wyatt earp]

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.

Few and far between are the individuals of whom I'm aware and who also entered military service "for any other reason than that they love this country." Most folks I know did it for one or several of the benefits military service offers -- the non-pay benefits, or the simple assurance of having a job, or some other non-patriotic reason.

"For any other reason than that they love this country" may explain why some individuals stay in the military and make a career out of it, and it's probably the reason some people enter it to begin with, but I think those folks are more the exception than the rule. But then, relative to the total quantity of people in the military, I know only a small quantity of them, and John Kelly without question knows far more of them than I. Be that as it is, it strains credulity to think pure patriotism and/or a sense of duty to country is ever the sole reason, as Kelly stated, though it may often be a reason.

Just a question where did you go to grade school and high school and what year?

 

[ClosedCaption]

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.

Few and far between are the individuals of whom I'm aware and who also entered military service "for any other reason than that they love this country." Most folks I know did it for one or several of the benefits military service offers -- the non-pay benefits, or the simple assurance of having a job, or some other non-patriotic reason.

"For any other reason than that they love this country" may explain why some individuals stay in the military and make a career out of it, and it's probably the reason some people enter it to begin with, but I think those folks are more the exception than the rule. But then, relative to the total quantity of people in the military, I know only a small quantity of them, and John Kelly without question knows far more of them than I. Be that as it is, it strains credulity to think pure patriotism and/or a sense of duty to country is ever the sole reason, as Kelly stated, though it may often be a reason.

Right, as if the only or prevailing reasons of most people who join is love of country almost like they would do it for free if they could. Thats a cool story but to say that most of the people all believe one thing is silly and a play on emotions.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.

Few and far between are the individuals of whom I'm aware and who also entered military service "for any other reason than that they love this country." Most folks I know did it for one or several of the benefits military service offers -- the non-pay benefits, or the simple assurance of having a job, or some other non-patriotic reason.

"For any other reason than that they love this country" may explain why some individuals stay in the military and make a career out of it, and it's probably the reason some people enter it to begin with, but I think those folks are more the exception than the rule. But then, relative to the total quantity of people in the military, I know only a small quantity of them, and John Kelly without question knows far more of them than I. Be that as it is, it strains credulity to think pure patriotism and/or a sense of duty to country is ever the sole reason, as Kelly stated, though it may often be a reason.

Right, as if the only or prevailing reasons of most people who join is love of country almost like they would do it for free if they could. Thats a cool story but to say that most of the people all believe one thing is silly and a play on emotions.

O was busy bailing out wall street to the tune of 80b a month. Wouldnt you rather O had given that to the military personnel....as in the form of raises....not govt contracts? I would have. Instead, he gave over 4 trillion to ws.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

That's clearly not an accurate statement. A president discussing with a widow the circumstances of her husband's death in connection with an action ordered (directly or indirectly) by the president is part of his duty as POTUS. It is thus among the business of the office of the president, of the U.S. Presidential record keeping laws make that so.

• Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)
  
• Retaining Presidential Records Under the Law - CREW

Nobody forced Trump into the fishbowl, but he's there now and the scrutiny and visibility to what he does is necessarily far greater than that to which he was subject as a private citizen. For the whole of his tenure in office, he simply is not a private citizen. Giving up one's privacy -- short of the most personal of acts conducted alone or with one' spouse -- goes with the job.

 

[usmbguest5318]

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.

Few and far between are the individuals of whom I'm aware and who also entered military service "for any other reason than that they love this country." Most folks I know did it for one or several of the benefits military service offers -- the non-pay benefits, or the simple assurance of having a job, or some other non-patriotic reason.

"For any other reason than that they love this country" may explain why some individuals stay in the military and make a career out of it, and it's probably the reason some people enter it to begin with, but I think those folks are more the exception than the rule. But then, relative to the total quantity of people in the military, I know only a small quantity of them, and John Kelly without question knows far more of them than I. Be that as it is, it strains credulity to think pure patriotism and/or a sense of duty to country is ever the sole reason, as Kelly stated, though it may often be a reason.

Right, as if the only or prevailing reasons of most people who join is love of country almost like they would do it for free if they could. Thats a cool story but to say that most of the people all believe one thing is silly and a play on emotions.

O was busy bailing out wall street to the tune of 80b a month. Wouldnt you rather O had given that to the military personnel....as in the form of raises....not govt contracts? I would have. Instead, he gave over 4 trillion to ws.

Irrelevant. What Obama did has nothing to do with Kelly's remarks or how Kelly handled the matter. Either address Kelly's remarks and actions on their own merits/demerits or don't, but try invoking that tu quoque BS as some sort of exculpation or explanation. Kelly didn't get where he is by doing things because of what others did that was similar. He got there by doing what he chose to do on the merit of the action itself. Accordingly, be respectful enough, of Kelly if not the OP-er and thread, to discuss his actions, not someone else's.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.

Few and far between are the individuals of whom I'm aware and who also entered military service "for any other reason than that they love this country." Most folks I know did it for one or several of the benefits military service offers -- the non-pay benefits, or the simple assurance of having a job, or some other non-patriotic reason.

"For any other reason than that they love this country" may explain why some individuals stay in the military and make a career out of it, and it's probably the reason some people enter it to begin with, but I think those folks are more the exception than the rule. But then, relative to the total quantity of people in the military, I know only a small quantity of them, and John Kelly without question knows far more of them than I. Be that as it is, it strains credulity to think pure patriotism and/or a sense of duty to country is ever the sole reason, as Kelly stated, though it may often be a reason.

Right, as if the only or prevailing reasons of most people who join is love of country almost like they would do it for free if they could. Thats a cool story but to say that most of the people all believe one thing is silly and a play on emotions.

O was busy bailing out wall street to the tune of 80b a month. Wouldnt you rather O had given that to the military personnel....as in the form of raises....not govt contracts? I would have. Instead, he gave over 4 trillion to ws.

Irrelevant. What Obama did has nothing to do with Kelly's remarks or how Kelly handled the matter. Either address Kelly's remarks and actions on their own merits/demerits or don't, but try invoking that tu quoque BS as some sort of exculpation or explanation. Kelly didn't get where he is by doing things because of what others did that was similar. He got there by doing what he chose to do on the merit of the action itself. Accordingly, be respectful enough, of Kelly if not the OP-er and thread, to discuss his actions, not someone else's.

Not at all irrelevant. I was responding to CC.

 

[ClosedCaption]

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.

Few and far between are the individuals of whom I'm aware and who also entered military service "for any other reason than that they love this country." Most folks I know did it for one or several of the benefits military service offers -- the non-pay benefits, or the simple assurance of having a job, or some other non-patriotic reason.

"For any other reason than that they love this country" may explain why some individuals stay in the military and make a career out of it, and it's probably the reason some people enter it to begin with, but I think those folks are more the exception than the rule. But then, relative to the total quantity of people in the military, I know only a small quantity of them, and John Kelly without question knows far more of them than I. Be that as it is, it strains credulity to think pure patriotism and/or a sense of duty to country is ever the sole reason, as Kelly stated, though it may often be a reason.

Right, as if the only or prevailing reasons of most people who join is love of country almost like they would do it for free if they could. Thats a cool story but to say that most of the people all believe one thing is silly and a play on emotions.

O was busy bailing out wall street to the tune of 80b a month. Wouldnt you rather O had given that to the military personnel....as in the form of raises....not govt contracts? I would have. Instead, he gave over 4 trillion to ws.

Irrelevant. What Obama did has nothing to do with Kelly's remarks or how Kelly handled the matter. Either address Kelly's remarks and actions on their own merits/demerits or don't, but try invoking that tu quoque BS as some sort of exculpation or explanation. Kelly didn't get where he is by doing things because of what others did that was similar. He got there by doing what he chose to do on the merit of the action itself. Accordingly, be respectful enough, of Kelly if not the OP-er and thread, to discuss his actions, not someone else's.

Not at all irrelevant. I was responding to CC.

No, it actually is irrelevant

 

[usmbguest5318]

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.

Few and far between are the individuals of whom I'm aware and who also entered military service "for any other reason than that they love this country." Most folks I know did it for one or several of the benefits military service offers -- the non-pay benefits, or the simple assurance of having a job, or some other non-patriotic reason.

"For any other reason than that they love this country" may explain why some individuals stay in the military and make a career out of it, and it's probably the reason some people enter it to begin with, but I think those folks are more the exception than the rule. But then, relative to the total quantity of people in the military, I know only a small quantity of them, and John Kelly without question knows far more of them than I. Be that as it is, it strains credulity to think pure patriotism and/or a sense of duty to country is ever the sole reason, as Kelly stated, though it may often be a reason.

Right, as if the only or prevailing reasons of most people who join is love of country almost like they would do it for free if they could. Thats a cool story but to say that most of the people all believe one thing is silly and a play on emotions.

O was busy bailing out wall street to the tune of 80b a month. Wouldnt you rather O had given that to the military personnel....as in the form of raises....not govt contracts? I would have. Instead, he gave over 4 trillion to ws.

Irrelevant. What Obama did has nothing to do with Kelly's remarks or how Kelly handled the matter. Either address Kelly's remarks and actions on their own merits/demerits or don't, but try invoking that tu quoque BS as some sort of exculpation or explanation. Kelly didn't get where he is by doing things because of what others did that was similar. He got there by doing what he chose to do on the merit of the action itself. Accordingly, be respectful enough, of Kelly if not the OP-er and thread, to discuss his actions, not someone else's.

Not at all irrelevant. I was responding to CC.

Well, looking at the content above (expand the first quote above), what of it are his words? The OP is overwhelmingly a copy-paste of Masha Green's thoughts and I responded to a quote from Kelly that was in her essay. ClosedCaption essentially amplified my comment. So as I wrote, your remark about what Obama and his team did isn't relevant ,not to what Kelly did, not to what I wrote, not to what Green wrote, nor to what ClosedCaption has written.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Few and far between are the individuals of whom I'm aware and who also entered military service "for any other reason than that they love this country." Most folks I know did it for one or several of the benefits military service offers -- the non-pay benefits, or the simple assurance of having a job, or some other non-patriotic reason.

"For any other reason than that they love this country" may explain why some individuals stay in the military and make a career out of it, and it's probably the reason some people enter it to begin with, but I think those folks are more the exception than the rule. But then, relative to the total quantity of people in the military, I know only a small quantity of them, and John Kelly without question knows far more of them than I. Be that as it is, it strains credulity to think pure patriotism and/or a sense of duty to country is ever the sole reason, as Kelly stated, though it may often be a reason.

Right, as if the only or prevailing reasons of most people who join is love of country almost like they would do it for free if they could. Thats a cool story but to say that most of the people all believe one thing is silly and a play on emotions.

O was busy bailing out wall street to the tune of 80b a month. Wouldnt you rather O had given that to the military personnel....as in the form of raises....not govt contracts? I would have. Instead, he gave over 4 trillion to ws.

Irrelevant. What Obama did has nothing to do with Kelly's remarks or how Kelly handled the matter. Either address Kelly's remarks and actions on their own merits/demerits or don't, but try invoking that tu quoque BS as some sort of exculpation or explanation. Kelly didn't get where he is by doing things because of what others did that was similar. He got there by doing what he chose to do on the merit of the action itself. Accordingly, be respectful enough, of Kelly if not the OP-er and thread, to discuss his actions, not someone else's.

Not at all irrelevant. I was responding to CC.

No, it actually is irrelevant

Lol. So you can't respond. I was hoping but I guess not....

 

[ClosedCaption]

Right, as if the only or prevailing reasons of most people who join is love of country almost like they would do it for free if they could. Thats a cool story but to say that most of the people all believe one thing is silly and a play on emotions.

O was busy bailing out wall street to the tune of 80b a month. Wouldnt you rather O had given that to the military personnel....as in the form of raises....not govt contracts? I would have. Instead, he gave over 4 trillion to ws.

Irrelevant. What Obama did has nothing to do with Kelly's remarks or how Kelly handled the matter. Either address Kelly's remarks and actions on their own merits/demerits or don't, but try invoking that tu quoque BS as some sort of exculpation or explanation. Kelly didn't get where he is by doing things because of what others did that was similar. He got there by doing what he chose to do on the merit of the action itself. Accordingly, be respectful enough, of Kelly if not the OP-er and thread, to discuss his actions, not someone else's.

Not at all irrelevant. I was responding to CC.

No, it actually is irrelevant

Lol. So you can't respond. I was hoping but I guess not....

Aww, I'm sorry, I havent fallen for the "whadda chicken" response since I was a child. I did respond. I responded it was irrelevant. Have fun

 

[usmbguest5318]

Right, as if the only or prevailing reasons of most people who join is love of country almost like they would do it for free if they could. Thats a cool story but to say that most of the people all believe one thing is silly and a play on emotions.

O was busy bailing out wall street to the tune of 80b a month. Wouldnt you rather O had given that to the military personnel....as in the form of raises....not govt contracts? I would have. Instead, he gave over 4 trillion to ws.

Irrelevant. What Obama did has nothing to do with Kelly's remarks or how Kelly handled the matter. Either address Kelly's remarks and actions on their own merits/demerits or don't, but try invoking that tu quoque BS as some sort of exculpation or explanation. Kelly didn't get where he is by doing things because of what others did that was similar. He got there by doing what he chose to do on the merit of the action itself. Accordingly, be respectful enough, of Kelly if not the OP-er and thread, to discuss his actions, not someone else's.

Not at all irrelevant. I was responding to CC.

No, it actually is irrelevant

Lol. So you can't respond. I was hoping but I guess not....

I suspect you're trying to elicit a response on Obama because you don't have something of merit to say about the actual thread topic which is how Kelly has framed some of Trump's remarks.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

O was busy bailing out wall street to the tune of 80b a month. Wouldnt you rather O had given that to the military personnel....as in the form of raises....not govt contracts? I would have. Instead, he gave over 4 trillion to ws.

Irrelevant. What Obama did has nothing to do with Kelly's remarks or how Kelly handled the matter. Either address Kelly's remarks and actions on their own merits/demerits or don't, but try invoking that tu quoque BS as some sort of exculpation or explanation. Kelly didn't get where he is by doing things because of what others did that was similar. He got there by doing what he chose to do on the merit of the action itself. Accordingly, be respectful enough, of Kelly if not the OP-er and thread, to discuss his actions, not someone else's.

Not at all irrelevant. I was responding to CC.

No, it actually is irrelevant

Lol. So you can't respond. I was hoping but I guess not....

Aww, I'm sorry, I havent fallen for the "whadda chicken" response since I was a child. I did respond. I responded it was irrelevant. Have fun

Its not that. I won't respond anymore, CC. Enjoy.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

O was busy bailing out wall street to the tune of 80b a month. Wouldnt you rather O had given that to the military personnel....as in the form of raises....not govt contracts? I would have. Instead, he gave over 4 trillion to ws.

Irrelevant. What Obama did has nothing to do with Kelly's remarks or how Kelly handled the matter. Either address Kelly's remarks and actions on their own merits/demerits or don't, but try invoking that tu quoque BS as some sort of exculpation or explanation. Kelly didn't get where he is by doing things because of what others did that was similar. He got there by doing what he chose to do on the merit of the action itself. Accordingly, be respectful enough, of Kelly if not the OP-er and thread, to discuss his actions, not someone else's.

Not at all irrelevant. I was responding to CC.

No, it actually is irrelevant

Lol. So you can't respond. I was hoping but I guess not....

I suspect you're trying to elicit a response on Obama because you don't have something of merit to say about the actual thread topic which is how Kelly has framed some of Trump's remarks.

Kelly's remarks don't matter as most posts go off on several tangents. I'm just trying to get past the superficial stuff. Evidently, CC couldnt get past that. Thats too bad. I lost a lot of respect for CC today and will not respond anymore.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

One's having served in the military hardly puts one above reproach. In American history, the verity of that being so dates at least to Benedict Arnold. Arnold is not alone:

• Veterans in Prison and Jail, 2011–12
  
• Rapid fall, possible life in prison for Army general accused of sex crimes
  
• Retired 4-star Army general accused of assaulting Chinese food delivery man, resisting arrest

 

[MarkDuffy]

It was sad to see Empty Barrel Kelly destroy his reputation so quickly and so soundly. All the lies too!

This is what the trump disease does

Kelly's new office

 

[Meathead]

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup

Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military.

2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do.

3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs.

4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.

Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”

Kelly stood up there and pretty much tried to lecture everyone else on what it means to serve and that he and others that serve feel sorry for the rest of us. And that anyone who dares question anything they do is in effect a shitty person because, as mentioned, he served in the military so he's beyond question.

Good Lord! Doesn't this belong in Conspiracy Theory? Even acute butthurt doesn't account for this.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Irrelevant. What Obama did has nothing to do with Kelly's remarks or how Kelly handled the matter. Either address Kelly's remarks and actions on their own merits/demerits or don't, but try invoking that tu quoque BS as some sort of exculpation or explanation. Kelly didn't get where he is by doing things because of what others did that was similar. He got there by doing what he chose to do on the merit of the action itself. Accordingly, be respectful enough, of Kelly if not the OP-er and thread, to discuss his actions, not someone else's.

Not at all irrelevant. I was responding to CC.

No, it actually is irrelevant

Lol. So you can't respond. I was hoping but I guess not....

I suspect you're trying to elicit a response on Obama because you don't have something of merit to say about the actual thread topic which is how Kelly has framed some of Trump's remarks.

Kelly's remarks don't matter as most posts go off on several tangents. I'm just trying to get past the superficial stuff. Evidently, CC couldnt get past that. Thats too bad. I lost a lot of respect for CC today and will not respond anymore.

Kelly's remarks don't matter as most posts go off on several tangents.

Excuse me? Tangential is, in a discussion about John Kelly's remarks in a press briefing about Trump's remarks and actions, bringing up what Obama did. Hell, that's not really even tangential because with tangential comments there is at least some point at which there is a substantive intersection of the points brought into the discussion. For this discussion topic, there is no point of intersection between anything Obama did and John Kelly's defense of President Trump’s remarks during a phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson, the widow of Sgt. La David T. Johnson who was killed in 2017 while actively serving in Niger. It is for that reason whatever Obama did or didn't do related to Wall St. is irrelevant.