Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He didn't mean to criticize you. Why are you taking it so personally?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.
This doesn't have anything to do with a coup, I think.
Christ. I can't help you. This level of ignorance or stupidity cannot be justified by acute butthurt alone. Sorry.I know you to be a snowflake of very modest intellect:Sure. General Kelley is planning a military coup. Couldn't be clearer.Come on asshole. The Kennedy assassination happened too.
And Bears shit in the woods but that nor none of the things we are discussing are conspiracies either
Seriously, even acute butthurt doesn't account for this.
Oh I get it now! You didnt read it so you think someone is suggesting Kelly is staging a Coup LMAO! Here is why you're funny, you think this belongs in conspiracy because you think someone said something no one has ever said.
Youre entire outrage is based on your ignorance and you want someone to play in the mud with you? Sorry buddy, but just because you came into a thread not knowing what the fuck anyone is talking about doesnt mean you deserve to be engaged.
Go read and then come back with a different opinion of what someone actually says, not what you made up
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...
Does the word "implicit" mean anything to you? I repeat myself, even acute butthurt does not account for this shit.
Why are you reposting what I pasted then asking about the definition of the word implicit?
Are we talking about you believing someone was saying Kelly was staging a Coup? Or have you given that bullshit up to ask if I know the definitions of words and conceding the point that you dont know wtf you're talking about?
Christ. I can't help you. This level of ignorance or stupidity cannot be justified by acute butthurt alone. Sorry.I know you to be a snowflake of very modest intellect:Sure. General Kelley is planning a military coup. Couldn't be clearer.And Bears shit in the woods but that nor none of the things we are discussing are conspiracies either
Seriously, even acute butthurt doesn't account for this.
Oh I get it now! You didnt read it so you think someone is suggesting Kelly is staging a Coup LMAO! Here is why you're funny, you think this belongs in conspiracy because you think someone said something no one has ever said.
Youre entire outrage is based on your ignorance and you want someone to play in the mud with you? Sorry buddy, but just because you came into a thread not knowing what the fuck anyone is talking about doesnt mean you deserve to be engaged.
Go read and then come back with a different opinion of what someone actually says, not what you made up
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...
Does the word "implicit" mean anything to you? I repeat myself, even acute butthurt does not account for this shit.
Why are you reposting what I pasted then asking about the definition of the word implicit?
Are we talking about you believing someone was saying Kelly was staging a Coup? Or have you given that bullshit up to ask if I know the definitions of words and conceding the point that you dont know wtf you're talking about?
Irrelevant. The point to which you responded, the net essence of Kelly's argument/justification, is that having served in the military puts one above reproach. As I have shown, having served in the military does not at all do so. Why one commits whatever wrongful or criminal acts one does -- be one in the military or not -- has nothing to do with whether the acts and actor are or are not above reproach.Benedict Arnold was overlooked by a congress, in favor of local pork, for several commendations and promotions. What happened then happens now.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:
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.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....
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.
Irrelevant. The point to which you responded, the net essence of Kelly's argument/justification, is that having served in the military puts one above reproach. As I have shown, having served in the military does not at all do so. Why one commits whatever wrongful or criminal acts one does -- be one in the military or not -- has nothing to do with whether the acts and actor are or are not above reproach.Benedict Arnold was overlooked by a congress, in favor of local pork, for several commendations and promotions. What happened then happens now.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:
Yes, it is relevant no matter how much you wish it weren't so.
Well, if you think so, show how so.Irrelevant. The point to which you responded, the net essence of Kelly's argument/justification, is that having served in the military puts one above reproach. As I have shown, having served in the military does not at all do so. Why one commits whatever wrongful or criminal acts one does -- be one in the military or not -- has nothing to do with whether the acts and actor are or are not above reproach.Benedict Arnold was overlooked by a congress, in favor of local pork, for several commendations and promotions. What happened then happens now.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:
Yes, it is relevant no matter how much you wish it weren't so.
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.No, it actually is irrelevant
Lol. So you can't respond. I was hoping but I guess not....
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.
Yes, there is since O never called Kelly. Keep trying.
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.
No, it does not. That tactic is called "argument by assertion" or "argument by repetition."Irrelevant. The point to which you responded, the net essence of Kelly's argument/justification, is that having served in the military puts one above reproach. As I have shown, having served in the military does not at all do so. Why one commits whatever wrongful or criminal acts one does -- be one in the military or not -- has nothing to do with whether the acts and actor are or are not above reproach.Benedict Arnold was overlooked by a congress, in favor of local pork, for several commendations and promotions. What happened then happens now.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:
Yes, it is relevant no matter how much you wish it weren't so.
Reply "is too" doesn't work. Sorry.
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.
Ok, this coming from a Trump critic (some call me a
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.
Ok, this coming from a Trump critic (some call me a hater even) but this was the dumbest thing I have read on this forum in a while.
The part the made me laugh the most was the quip about Semper Fi. Talk about someone being clueless!
Well, let me take time to consider your well researched retort. "Someone being clueless" of what? Who knows?
Dumbest things I have read - How? Who knows?
The one thing I did learn was that you laughed, so thats something
I have no problem at all with a general advising a clueless civilian on the proper way to console the widow of a fallen soldier. None at all.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.
Kelly is aware Trump has never served, right?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.”
I have no problem at all with a general advising a clueless civilian on the proper way to console the widow of a fallen soldier. None at all.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.
That is not even in the same fucking UNIVERSE as a military coup, retard.
I have no problem at all with a general advising a clueless civilian on the proper way to console the widow of a fallen soldier.
I think Kelly told Trump exactly what Kelly said he advised. But then Trump, being an idiot who can't hold a thought longer than a bumper sticker, bungled the delivery.I have no problem at all with a general advising a clueless civilian on the proper way to console the widow of a fallen soldier. None at all.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.
That is not even in the same fucking UNIVERSE as a military coup, retard.I have no problem at all with a general advising a clueless civilian on the proper way to console the widow of a fallen soldier.
Kelly's offer of guidance in that regard is not at all what's problematic or dismaying about the matter or the actors involved in it.
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.”
Ok, this coming from a Trump critic (some call me a
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.
Ok, this coming from a Trump critic (some call me a hater even) but this was the dumbest thing I have read on this forum in a while.
The part the made me laugh the most was the quip about Semper Fi. Talk about someone being clueless!
Well, let me take time to consider your well researched retort. "Someone being clueless" of what? Who knows?
Dumbest things I have read - How? Who knows?
The one thing I did learn was that you laughed, so thats something
Well for starters, Semper Fi is not a 'literal loyalty oath" it is a motto and a greeting from one Marine to another. For the author of the article to call it a loyalty oath shows a complete and total lack of understanding of the term or what it means to be a Marine. And it also basically invalidates everything else he said.
For the author of the article to call it a loyalty oath shows a complete and total lack of understanding of the term or what it means to be a Marine.
I think Kelly told Trump exactly what Kelly said he advised. But then Trump, being an idiot who can't hold a thought longer than a bumper sticker, bungled the delivery.I have no problem at all with a general advising a clueless civilian on the proper way to console the widow of a fallen soldier. None at all.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.
That is not even in the same fucking UNIVERSE as a military coup, retard.I have no problem at all with a general advising a clueless civilian on the proper way to console the widow of a fallen soldier.
Kelly's offer of guidance in that regard is not at all what's problematic or dismaying about the matter or the actors involved in it.
The widow is pregnant and grieving, and thus in a highly emotional state. Trump is the last person on the planet who knows how to deliver a consoling message with gravitas or sincerity.
Any future calls of this nature he makes should be with Kelly conferenced in and doing most of the talking.
I think Kelly told Trump exactly what Kelly said he advised. But then Trump, being an idiot who can't hold a thought longer than a bumper sticker, bungled the delivery.
so you think active duty Vets will over throw the government b/c someone said some things.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.
so you think active duty Vets will over throw the government b/c someone said some things.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.
We didn't murder the Clintons when they started fucking us all over, so words won't have the impact you fucking leftist shits think it will
