Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-21-2017, 08:17 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
Nobody's Pitted Gen. John Kelly, that national disgrace? Allow me, then.

I assume everyone knows about Kelly's remarks the other day defending his boss, the Orange Abomination, and attacking Congresswoman Frederica Wilson. So I'll just launch in.

1. Whatever Trump actually said in his call to Myeshia Johnson, and however he may have said it, the upshot is that Ms. Johnson was clearly hurt rather than comforted by the call. Once that was known, the White House's first priority should have been to rectify that. Gen. Kelly didn't give a damn about that. Fuck him for that.

2. One of the things that clearly riled Kelly the most was that Rep. Wilson supposedly violated the 'sacredness' of the privacy of the call between Trump and Ms. Johnson. And how did that supposedly happen? Neither Ms. Johnson, nor Sgt. Johnson's mother, nor Rep. Wilson, had any control over the phone at their end. The phone was in the hands of an Army sergeant, who put the phone on speaker.

So clearly the alleged privacy of the call broke down on the government's end. If there was a pre-call, the sergeant should have let the staffer at the White House end know who was in the car with Ms. Johnson. If there was no pre-call, then given that the sergeant's maintaining control of the phone required that the call be put on speaker, the White House was taking its chances on who might be in the car. And certainly there was no 'sacredness' concerning who might accompany Ms. Johnson in the car on her way to receive her husband's casket.

Kelly had to know much of this, especially given that his ostensible subject was what happens when a soldier is killed in action.

3. Rep. Wilson was present as a friend of the family, and as a woman who'd mentored Sgt. Johnson, not just as a Congresswoman. Kelly had to know this, it was in all the news accounts, but he chose to ignore this.

In general, he completely distorted Rep. Wilson's role in the conversation in a way that amounted to a slander of her. Fuck him for this.

4. He reached back to an incident in 2015 involving Rep. Wilson, and fabricated a story about her at that incident to further slander her. Fuck him for this too.

5. Fuck him for everything he thinks used to be sacred, but isn't any more. Women used to be sacred? Only to the extent that they were put on a pedestal to deny them agency. The dignity of life used to be sacred? Lynchings were still a thing when he was in high school. Religion used to be sacred? Well, if you're gonna be all about the sacredness of things of this world, you're not the right person to speak of the sacredness of the things of God.

6. Especially his implication that the Khan family's presence at the Democratic convention last year somehow diminished the 'sacredness' of Gold Star families. Dafuq?! Meanwhile of course, his disregard for the immediate Gold Star family of Sgt. Johnson is palpable, as he ignores their hurt, and adds to it by slandering their friend. Fuck him with a chainsaw. His actions here demonstrate that he doesn't give a damn about Gold Star families.

7. And fuck the notion that the military and those connected with them are somehow better than the rest of us. Members of the military "volunteer to protect our country when there’s nothing in our country anymore that seems to suggest that selfless service to the nation is not only appropriate, but required"? They're "the best 1 percent this country produces"? Only Gold Star family members, or people who know them, have the right to ask him any questions? And of course, this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kelly
We don’t look down upon those of you who that haven’t served. In fact, in a way we’re 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 service men and women do — not for any other reason than they love this country. So just think of that.
Yeah, sure you don't look down on the rest of us. You're just a little bit sorry for us, that we haven't been like you. Uhhuh.

No, you're not better than the rest of us. Ranking military service as a superior vocation is the stuff of fascism, not democracy. Those in uniform are no better or worse than the rest of us. And John Kelly, who I will no longer honor with a military rank, you, personally, are far worse than the rest of us for saying such things. Someone else can play your role of keeping Trump's hands off the nuclear football. Kindly get the fuck out of public life and take a vow of silence. You are a disgrace to America.
  #2  
Old 10-21-2017, 08:22 AM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,189
AAA++ pitting! Good to have it all in one place.
  #3  
Old 10-21-2017, 08:37 AM
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 28,043
I long ago started rating Jarheads on a case-by-case basis. Saying, "Thank you for your service," is usually good for a round or two on them." More? I've left the bar by then. One can't expect miracles from the guys who are proud to be the rats running INTO a sinking ship.
  #4  
Old 10-21-2017, 09:10 AM
LongTimeLurker LongTimeLurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
<snip>
No, you're not better than the rest of us. Ranking military service as a superior vocation is the stuff of fascism, not democracy. Those in uniform are no better or worse than the rest of us. And John Kelly, who I will no longer honor with a military rank, you, personally, are far worse than the rest of us for saying such things. Someone else can play your role of keeping Trump's hands off the nuclear football. Kindly get the fuck out of public life and take a vow of silence. You are a disgrace to America.
Thank you for speaking to the truth. Our country seems to think that a homeless veteran should be treated better than a homeless civilian. VA health care not good? Gee, I wonder what the majority of our populations health care is like.

Our country doesn't need to spend more money on defense, our country needs to account for the money we currently spend on defense. Defense Contractors, like our privatized prisons, are only motivated to provide shareholder value, they have no motivations to provide public value.

It is SAD, that 63 million Americans thought that an Oligarchy would fix the scenario that the 1% have spent decades and billions of dollars to create.
  #5  
Old 10-21-2017, 09:18 AM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,133
The back-to-the-time-when-women-were-sacred thing really pissed me off when I heard about it. That was before I knew about his lying about Wilson's earlier speech. His annoyance with the gold star family being at the Democratic Convention is pretty rich -- does he recall why they were there? Who originally brought the Khan's into the spotlight by disrespecting that Gold Star family?

Also, while I respect military folks as much as I respect my other fellow humans, his quote about feeling sorry about us poor non-serving people reminds me of this classic SNL commercial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhioeOeOHsA

"It's not just a job, it's $96.78 a week."

Anyway, he sold his reputation when he agreed to work for the shitstain-in-chief. I thought he was possibly doing it out of some sense of duty to the country, and he thought he could help right the ship of state. Turns out, he's just one of them, a lying asshole who wants to bring the US back to the '50s, when women had their place on the pedestal and in the kitchen, abortion was illegal, and all right Americans were god-fearing.

I had given him the benefit of the doubt, but fuck that guy.
  #6  
Old 10-21-2017, 09:33 AM
Bayard Bayard is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,349
Excellent pitting.
  #7  
Old 10-21-2017, 09:36 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,629
Yep. Kelly really screwed the pooch with this situation. But he agreed to be the CoS in the Trump administration. I'm sure he knew what he was getting himself into.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 10-21-2017 at 09:38 AM.
  #8  
Old 10-21-2017, 09:48 AM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm sure he knew what he was getting himself into.
I suspect that we've found the defining statement with regards to Donald Trump and his administration. Anything they complain about, anytime they bemoan the opposition, any expression of disappointment will only yield the same response, in lieu of a "fuck you": they knew what they were getting themselves into.
  #9  
Old 10-21-2017, 09:48 AM
JackieLikesVariety JackieLikesVariety is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
Excellent pitting.


yes
  #10  
Old 10-21-2017, 09:53 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I suspect that we've found the defining statement with regards to Donald Trump and his administration. Anything they complain about, anytime they bemoan the opposition, any expression of disappointment will only yield the same response, in lieu of a "fuck you": they knew what they were getting themselves into.
One among many defining statements to choose from. Nobody knew it would be so hard.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 10-21-2017 at 09:54 AM.
  #11  
Old 10-21-2017, 10:35 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,540
Agreed with all this. Only thing to add, which I said elsewhere:

It's possible that his recounting of the story about Wilson's dedication of the building was an honest misremembering. There are a couple of possibilities: before slandering her in front of the nation, either he made the story up on purpose, or he gives so little a shit about the truth that he didn't bother to check the record to verify his memories before going ahead with the slander.

Now that the record shows he's unambiguously wrong, there are two different possibilities: either he's a goddamned liar who trusts that Trump's base won't give a shit about the truth as long as he maintains the lie, or he's a goddamned coward too craven to come forward with a full and unprovisional apology for his slander.

Maybe there are other possibilities. I don't see any.
  #12  
Old 10-21-2017, 11:22 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Agreed with all this. Only thing to add, which I said elsewhere:

It's possible that his recounting of the story about Wilson's dedication of the building was an honest misremembering. There are a couple of possibilities: before slandering her in front of the nation, either he made the story up on purpose, or he gives so little a shit about the truth that he didn't bother to check the record to verify his memories before going ahead with the slander.

Now that the record shows he's unambiguously wrong, there are two different possibilities: either he's a goddamned liar who trusts that Trump's base won't give a shit about the truth as long as he maintains the lie, or he's a goddamned coward too craven to come forward with a full and unprovisional apology for his slander.

Maybe there are other possibilities. I don't see any.
I've basically been a cautious admirer of Kelly up to this point - perhaps naive an unwarranted but in recognition of the fact that he's providing stability to a president who's unhinged.

But I agree that he needs to come forward with an apology and some sort of clarification of his remarks. I could understand not recalling the facts correctly. It's possible that Rep Wilson made comments off camera to people individually that he might have interpreted as grandstanding. But again, what he said does not comport with the facts. If he fails to acknowledge that, then in my view he's just another sullied member of the administration.

The remarks at the end hardly even seem like his own, almost as if they were written by Donny himself. That's what's so puzzling. I found myself pretty much nodding to what he was saying until those final few moments at the end when he went off script and became the reincarnation of Al Haig
  #13  
Old 10-21-2017, 11:34 AM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Agreed with all this. Only thing to add, which I said elsewhere:

It's possible that his recounting of the story about Wilson's dedication of the building was an honest misremembering. There are a couple of possibilities: before slandering her in front of the nation, either he made the story up on purpose, or he gives so little a shit about the truth that he didn't bother to check the record to verify his memories before going ahead with the slander.

Now that the record shows he's unambiguously wrong, there are two different possibilities: either he's a goddamned liar who trusts that Trump's base won't give a shit about the truth as long as he maintains the lie, or he's a goddamned coward too craven to come forward with a full and unprovisional apology for his slander.

Maybe there are other possibilities. I don't see any.
I think it's more likely he was fed the disinformation, it doesn't seem like something he would have paid attention to at the time it "happened".
Claiming Congresswoman Wilson took credit for something she didn't do is right up this Administration's alley.
Of course, he should know by now to double-check anything that pack of liars tells him.
  #14  
Old 10-21-2017, 11:45 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
I think it's more likely he was fed the disinformation, it doesn't seem like something he would have paid attention to at the time it "happened".
Claiming Congresswoman Wilson took credit for something she didn't do is right up this Administration's alley.
Of course, he should know by now to double-check anything that pack of liars tells him.
It's true I didn't account for the "pretended to remember when really he was fed the information." That may be the worst of all possibilities: that means he deliberately lied (about his memory) AND he didn't bother to check.

Also, a special shout-out to the assholes who look at the entire story and take the lesson that Wilson plays the race card too quickly. Look, motherfuckers: a black woman of Wilson's age and background is going to have heard more than her share of powerful white men treating her like shit, and a lot of it is going to have been motivated by racism. If yet another powerful white man treats her like shit, and insults her, and she misdiagnoses the cause of his shitty treatment as racism, THAT'S NOT THE GODDAMNED STORY. The goddamned story is that Kelly acted like an asshole toward her, whether it's because she's black or because she's a woman or because she's a Democrat or because she dared criticize his boss.

His assholery, not the victim's diagnosis of the etiology of the assholery, is what's important; and if you focus on the latter instead of the former, you're an asshole enabler.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 10-21-2017 at 11:46 AM.
  #15  
Old 10-21-2017, 11:56 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,691
We have a President that's surrounded himself with fraudsters like Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn; who has made laughable appointments like Pruitt, Perry, DeVos, Kushner. Looking for a silver lining in the cloud, we've come to regard Kelly, Mattis and Tillerson as the adults, the men of integrity separating this President from being an utter farce like North Korea's Kim.

This was already rather laughable to start with. Rex Tillerson? He's the man who consistently defied Obama's foreign policy. Getting an uptick in Exxon stock was always more important to him than patriotism or morality. And Americans went along — after all, don't most Americans affluent enough to follow political details have Exxon stock in one of their funds? Mad Dog Mattis? Probably the best of the three, but the Congress had to suspend law to allow a recently retired General to serve as SecDef. George Marshall? Colin Powell? They didn't get this dispensation. Trump's Mad Dog? No problem.

And there's John Kelly. Another in a long line of Generals who have led our forces to defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan that exceed the Vietnam War in cost, duration and loss of prestige, but at least (we thought) he was a man of integrity.

Now we know he is a foul shit-mouthed liar following in the steps of his Commander in Chief. In another thread, Dopers debate whether there is proof of racism. (I think Kelly's a racist but too smart to let that be obvious.) What we know for sure is that Kelly is a hard right-winger who has approved all of Trump's worst policies; he actively pursued the Muslim ban when he was Sec HomeSec. To understand Kelly, just imagine Trump with another 30 IQ points.

Once we hoped Kelly was the new savior to keep Trump from chaos. Now, as nightmare continues to unfold, we know that was just wishful thinking.
  #16  
Old 10-21-2017, 12:20 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 9,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kelly
We don’t look down upon those of you who that haven’t served. In fact, in a way we’re 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 service men and women do — not for any other reason than they love this country. So just think of that.
I hadn’t seen this before. I have never served in the military, but I have seen a lot of recruiting advertisements. They promote a lot of reasons other than “love of country” for people to sign up. Travel, adventure, training, benefits are all highlighted. Maybe he doesn’t have time to watch tv.
  #17  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:07 PM
Bayard Bayard is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
And there's John Kelly. Another in a long line of Generals who have led our forces to defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan that exceed the Vietnam War in cost, duration and loss of prestige, but at least (we thought) he was a man of integrity.
In spite of all their kind some elements of worth
With difficulty persist here and there on earth.

Hugh MacDiarmid
  #18  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:10 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I hadn’t seen this before. I have never served in the military, but I have seen a lot of recruiting advertisements. They promote a lot of reasons other than “love of country” for people to sign up. Travel, adventure, training, benefits are all highlighted. Maybe he doesn’t have time to watch tv.
I knew many who signed up because it was the only way they had to pay for college.
  #19  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:12 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,189
Forget all the rest of the politics, Kelly just dishonored his own son. Next time the talking heads give him credit for being the adult in the White House they should check out his actual character. I think this episode of lying reveals what's really inside this man. No surprise to me, another in a long line of disgraceful current and former generals.

We are seeing only the end of the beginning here. It's all downhill from this point.
  #20  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:20 PM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,106
The one thing that Kelly got right was the idea that TRUMP SHOULDNT BE MAKING THESE CALLS. But he couldn’t sell that idea to Trump which was his failure. Another thing I suspect Kelly got horribly stupidly wrong was thinking that telling Trump the lie about Obama not making calls would have the effect of making Trump quietly decide it wasn’t necessary. Because I’m pretty sure that’s what happened behind the scenes.

Instead Trump repeated Kelly’s lie publicly then doubled down.

If the call is done right, it is, in part, an apology. Because the POTUS is Commander-in-Chief and the soldier died under his command. The stuff about the soldier bravely volunteering only works in the context of an apology. If no apology is offered and/or the tone of the call is unapologetic then it looks like blame-shifting.

And one thing that is being lost in the shuffle is the fact that the widow was upset because Trump didn’t seem to know her husbands name.

And another inherent part of making these calls - if you insist on calling everyone and not a vetted selection- is knowing that they may not be well received. Sometimes the family is angry and will want to vent that anger. And sometimes the family is not in agreement with you politically and may want to express their differences. And you’re expected to suck it up. Their family member died under your watch and it’s partly, at least, your fault. Other presidents have taken that anger to heart. It drives home the incredible responsibility that come with the office.

But Trump is President. What more can I say. This duty should be delegated to Pence.

And John Kelly is a weak-willed piece of shit that his been bullied into being just another submissive Trump toady. Because for his entire life Trump has lived in the ultimate bubble, one where the prime directive of everyone in his orbit is “Let him win or all hell will break loose”. So now his staff must engage in a constant stream of bizzarro world press conferences in order to twist every gaffe into a win.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 10-21-2017 at 01:21 PM.
  #21  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:22 PM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,691
According to the overpaid whore Sarah Huckabee-Sanders it is "highly inappropriate" to call attention to Kelly's lying. Why? "Because he is a Marine four-star general." I don't understand the connection. Is she implying that, as a top Marine, Kelly knows karate and can inflict mayhem on journalists who challenge him?
  #22  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:28 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post

And John Kelly is a weak-willed piece of shit that his been bullied into being just another submissive Trump toady. Because for his entire life Trump has lived in the ultimate bubble, one where the prime directive of everyone in his orbit is “Let him win or all hell will break loose”. So now his staff must engage in a constant stream of bizzarro world press conferences in order to twist every gaffe into a win.
I rather doubt a 4-star Marine fits that description.
Though I can't imagine what made Kelly start following the Trump playbook.
  #23  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:37 PM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,691
I don't see a thread on the Niger ambush, so I'll call attention here to Dr. Maddow's discussion. Her remarks about Chad begin about 13:45 in the video.

Chad, top U.S. ally in North Central Africa, was added to the anti-Muslim ban apparently just because they missed a deadline to submit a new sample passport.

Chad responded by withdrawing its own troops from Niger. Whether this was direct cause of the ambush that killed Sgt. Johnson and others is unclear, but the ambush was caused by inadequate ground and air support. Trump, when asked about all this, responded with silence — he apparently knows nothing about the entire affair, not even Sgt. Johnson's name.

Last edited by septimus; 10-21-2017 at 01:38 PM.
  #24  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:42 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I don't see a thread on the Niger ambush, so I'll call attention here to Dr. Maddow's discussion. Her remarks about Chad begin about 13:45 in the video.

Chad, top U.S. ally in North Central Africa, was added to the anti-Muslim ban apparently just because they missed a deadline to submit a new sample passport.

Chad responded by withdrawing its own troops from Niger. Whether this was direct cause of the ambush that killed Sgt. Johnson and others is unclear, but the ambush was caused by inadequate ground and air support. Trump, when asked about all this, responded with silence — he apparently knows nothing about the entire affair, not even Sgt. Johnson's name.
Damn but that's uncharacteristic. (The silence part)

Last edited by running coach; 10-21-2017 at 01:42 PM.
  #25  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:50 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
According to the overpaid whore Sarah Huckabee-Sanders
This is misogynistic bullshit, and you should be ashamed. Be better than that.
  #26  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:57 PM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,691
Is she lying for money? Or is she lying because she thinks God has told her to help destroy America? Either way, I have more respect for sexual prostitutes.
  #27  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:10 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This is misogynistic bullshit, and you should be ashamed. Be better than that.
There's an interesting question, to me anyway, that probably should be addressed in another thread. The question is, are all gender-based insults off the table, or is "whore" bad because it's also used in the context of slut-shaming? Can you call a man a prick or a dick, or a gigolo? Since men are not really subject to slut-shaming, maybe it's OK. Can you call a woman a bitch or a c*nt? (I know it's allowed, but I just don't like that word) Those aren't really used in the context of shaming, but are gender based.

Just curious. I didn't like the use of "whore" in that post either. I guess "asshole" is always safe -- everyone has one!

/hijack

Whatever tiny respect I had for Kelly is long gone. Just another old-boys-club white guy, looking back with rose-colored glasses to the Fifties. Unfortunately, this episode probably makes Trump like him more.
  #28  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:21 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
There's an interesting question, to me anyway, that probably should be addressed in another thread. The question is, are all gender-based insults off the table, or is "whore" bad because it's also used in the context of slut-shaming? Can you call a man a prick or a dick, or a gigolo? Since men are not really subject to slut-shaming, maybe it's OK. Can you call a woman a bitch or a c*nt? (I know it's allowed, but I just don't like that word) Those aren't really used in the context of shaming, but are gender based.

Just curious. I didn't like the use of "whore" in that post either. I guess "asshole" is always safe -- everyone has one!
The hijack continues:

Is there a gender neutral term for someone who has sold out their principles and morals for money or other material things?
  #29  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:26 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The hijack continues:

Is there a gender neutral term for someone who has sold out their principles and morals for money or other material things?
I suppose "sellout" would work, but it seems pretty tame.

Whore is problematic because I don't think you would call Kelly a gigolo, right?

All this is giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they had principles and morals to sell out in the first place. I'm doubtful.
  #30  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:28 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
I think whore is it. It does have that gender-neutral meaning in addition to the sex-worker one.
  #31  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:30 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I suppose "sellout" would work, but it seems pretty tame.
I see the big factor is that both Dad and daughter are allegedly devout Christians for whom lying should anathema to their beliefs yet they not only do it for money and power but they do it in wholesale lots without the slightest trace of guilt.
  #32  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:31 PM
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
We are seeing only the end of the beginning here. It's all downhill from this point.
It's all been downhill, hasn't it? I don't remember any part of this nightmare that has been positive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The hijack continues:

Is there a gender neutral term for someone who has sold out their principles and morals for money or other material things?
This is a good question. "Whore" doesn't really work, because of the sexual connotation. Sanders and Kelly have definitely exchanged their morals for something, though.
  #33  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:39 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
It's all been downhill, hasn't it? I don't remember any part of this nightmare that has been positive.
I'm talking about a much longer period of time going back decades. I also believe we have reached the point where we cannot reverse direction or even stop the decline. Everyone should hope that I'm wrong.
  #34  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:40 PM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,691
It seems the criticism is not that I called her a whore, but that 'whore' is supposedly gender-specific. Am I forgiven if I write
Kelly and Huckabee-Sanders are both whores.
?

Is this what political correctness has come to? I suppose men can no longer be described as 'pricks'? I can't refer to Bannon as 'Trump's hitman'; I have to write 'hitperson'?

Last edited by septimus; 10-21-2017 at 02:43 PM.
  #35  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:48 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Is this what political correctness has come to? I suppose men can no longer be described as 'pricks'? I can't refer to Bannon as 'Trump's hitman'; I have to write 'hitperson'?
I said you should be ashamed. I guess engaging in self-pitying rationalizations of your shitty behavior is a viable alternative, and it looks like that's the route you're going.

Fix your shit, man. This isn't about political correctness, unless you're using the conservative meaning of "trying not to be an asshole." This is about your using sexist shitty language to describe women, and refusing to acknowledge it.

Fix your shit.
  #36  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:49 PM
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,492
No, that's not it. You can call a man a prick. You can call a woman a bitch. The hitch here is that you called a woman a whore, which is a term that normally refers to a woman who accepts money for sex. I think we all agree that Sanders is a hypocritical, lying, mean-spirited waste of space, but she isn't a sex worker. IOW, we either think that you shouldn't use the term because it's imprecise, or we think you shouldn't use the term because it's an unfair attack, and we're trying not to sink to her level. It's also complicated because men are not usually attacked by a term that has this type of sexual connotation (they aren't called gigolos, whores, or pimps normally). Making the attack against her based on her gender weakens the attack because it's irrelevant, and her sexual proclivities have nothing to do with anything.

We would like to think of a better term for her. Lying, two-faced weasel perhaps.

Last edited by Sunny Daze; 10-21-2017 at 02:53 PM.
  #37  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:57 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,189
I think 'whore' would be appropriate here in it's figurative sense except that he should have known that it could easily be misinterpreted. Perhaps simply apologizing for the poor choice of words is the correct remedy here. The incorrect approach is to get a general to try to justify your words.
  #38  
Old 10-21-2017, 03:15 PM
OttoDaFe OttoDaFe is offline
Head Blue Meanie
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The hijack continues:

Is there a gender neutral term for someone who has sold out their principles and morals for money or other material things?
Could we do something with "pottage" (as in, "sold one's birthright for a mess of …")?

Regarding the nature of a condolence call, I'm reminded of an incident reported by Bill Mauldin about General Lucien Truscott (who, according to Mauldin, could eat a ham like Patton for lunch). Truscott was invited to speak at a Memorial Day service at a cemetery in Italy, and when it was his turn he turned his back on the assembled dignitaries and addressed the headstones. The gist of his speech was an apology for the fact that they were dead in part because of decisions made by him and others like him. Also a promise that whenever he heard someone talk about the glory of war and dying for one's country, he would do his best to set the speaker straight.
__________________
Questions are a burden to others
Answers a prison for oneself
  #39  
Old 10-21-2017, 04:19 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
It seems the criticism is not that I called her a whore, but that 'whore' is supposedly gender-specific. Am I forgiven if I write
Kelly and Huckabee-Sanders are both whores.
?

Is this what political correctness has come to? I suppose men can no longer be described as 'pricks'? I can't refer to Bannon as 'Trump's hitman'; I have to write 'hitperson'?
Leaving aside your rant at the end, yes, if you had said "Kelly and H-S are both whores who have sold out whatever principles they had to support a corrupt administration", or something like that, it would have been better in my book. By including Kelly, you move the context and the meaning from "woman of ill repute, shameful slut" to the gender neutral meaning of "person who sells out his/her principles."

Others may disagree.

Now is where you might consider saying, "geez, I was wrong and that was pretty poor phrasing on my part. I'll do better in the future." That way, this thread doesn't become about you, it goes back to being about lying shitstain Kelly. General Kelly, ret., 4 stars of shit.
  #40  
Old 10-21-2017, 05:13 PM
Channing Idaho Banks Channing Idaho Banks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: beautiful Idaho
Posts: 2,059
I hope everyone remembers this stuff when his name is mentioned as a candidate.
__________________
It's too late.
  #41  
Old 10-21-2017, 06:58 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
JFTR, it seems that Kelly didn't turn into a nasty piece of work just this past week, he's been there awhile. Courtesy of Michael Cohen of the Boston Globe (what's in quotes is from a speech Kelly gave in April and subsequent remarks on Face the Nation, the stuff in between is Cohen's comments):
Quote:
"Make no mistake — we are a nation under attack.”

No, we’re not.

“We are under attack from criminals who think their greed justifies raping young girls at knifepoint, dealing poison to our youth, or killing just for fun.”

Crime rates have been declining for decades.

“We are under attack from people who hate us, hate our freedoms, hate our laws, hate our values, hate the way we simply live our lives.”

Since 9/11, approximately 94 people have been killed on US soil by jihadist terrorists — a bit more than the number of Americans killed every single day in gun violence.

“We are under attack from failed states, cyber-terrorists, vicious smugglers, and sadistic radicals.”

Cyber-terrorists have never killed an American citizen, no failed state threatens America and more Americans are killed by lightning strikes than sadistic radicals.

“And we are under attack every single day. The threats are relentless.”

No, they’re not.

On Sunday Kelly continued the onslaught.

“We have tremendous threats, whether it’s drugs, people, potential terrorists coming up from the south,” he said

There’s pretty much no evidence that terrorists are using the southern border as a transit point for entering America.

He also said the thing that “keeps me literally awake at night is the threat against aviation,” even though there is literally no safer form of travel and no element of American life more solidly protected from the threat of terrorism than flying on a plane.
  #42  
Old 10-21-2017, 07:20 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
Questions for Kelly

Given Kelly's desire that we know what happens at every tick of the clock when one of our military is killed in action, I'd kinda like to know the following:

1) When Myeshia Johnson and family/friends went to meet the casket containing Sgt. Johnson's body, were they in a private car, or in transportation arranged for and provided by the U.S. military? (I assume the latter, but it's worth nailing down, IMHO, to get the context of these events correct.)

2) Kelly refers to a 'pre-call' that normally takes place ahead of the President calling to offer his condolences. Did such a call take place in this instance, when was the call placed and to where (IOW, to the Johnson residence, or to the same phone that the actual call was placed to, or what)? Who physically received the call (Ms. Johnson? The sergeant in the car? Someone else?), was it on speaker or not at either end? What, if anything, was said concerning the allegedly private nature of the call proper, and to whom?

3) Who was in the car in addition to Ms. Johnson, Sgt. Johnson's mother, Rep. Wilson, and the sergeant who had physical possession of the phone? Anyone? A driver?

4) When Trump called, did the sergeant physically handle the phone throughout?

5) Did the sergeant put the phone on speaker without being asked, or was this requested by Ms. Johnson?

6) Did the sergeant offer to give the phone to Ms. Johnson so she could talk with Trump without the phone being on speaker?

7) Were any admonitions given to Ms. Johnson or her companions at the time of this call that this phone call was for her ears only?

8) At the other end of the call, who was in the room with Trump during the call?

9) Was the call on speaker at that end? Or was anyone on an extension at that end?
  #43  
Old 10-21-2017, 07:25 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
The latest defense of Kelly's account of the 2015 incident is that his account of Rep. Wilson's words was accurate, just that her remarks were off camera.

But wouldn't that mean that she was making these remarks before, after, or away from the dedication ceremony? And since the whole point was that she used the ceremony as a means of self-promotion in an extremely inappropriate context, if she was saying these things outside that context, it destroys the point of his remarks just as surely as if she'd never said them at all.
  #44  
Old 10-21-2017, 07:29 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I don't see a thread on the Niger ambush, so I'll call attention here to Dr. Maddow's discussion. Her remarks about Chad begin about 13:45 in the video.

Chad, top U.S. ally in North Central Africa, was added to the anti-Muslim ban apparently just because they missed a deadline to submit a new sample passport.

Chad responded by withdrawing its own troops from Niger. Whether this was direct cause of the ambush that killed Sgt. Johnson and others is unclear, but the ambush was caused by inadequate ground and air support. Trump, when asked about all this, responded with silence — he apparently knows nothing about the entire affair, not even Sgt. Johnson's name.
Complete and utter bullshit (of course, it's Maddow so that's just normal for her). Chad's forces, before they were withdrawn, were 800 miles away from where this happened, and there to fight Boko Haram and not AlQueda and ISIS-affiliated militants out of Mali. Never were anywhere close to this area.

Last edited by Okrahoma; 10-21-2017 at 07:33 PM.
  #45  
Old 10-21-2017, 07:36 PM
don't mind me don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 772
Quote:
“We are under attack from failed states, cyber-terrorists, vicious smugglers, and sadistic radicals.”
I'm sure he means the cyber-terrorists who tried to destroy our democratic process.
  #46  
Old 10-21-2017, 07:50 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Complete and utter bullshit (of course, it's Maddow so that's just normal for her). Chad's forces, before they were withdrawn, were 800 miles away from where this happened, and there to fight Boko Haram and not AlQueda and ISIS-affiliated militants out of Mali. Never were anywhere close to this area.
Rueters.
Quote:
Chad has withdrawn hundreds of troops from neighboring Niger, where they were helping local forces fight Boko Haram Islamist militants, humanitarian sources and officials said.

The pull-out over the past two weeks could weaken a region-wide struggle against the militants who have killed tens of thousands of people, forced many more to flee and triggered a humanitarian crisis.

There was no immediate explanation or comment from defense officials in Chad.

But the move came a month after the vast central African country complained about an unexpected U.S. travel ban imposed on its nationals. Chad warned at the time the order could affect its security commitments - which include its involvement in the U.S.-backed fight against Boko Haram.
Business Insider
Quote:
This is the story of how an office supply glitch became a major irritant between the United States and one of its close security partners.

When President Donald Trump added the African nation of Chad last month to his most recent installment of travel restrictions, everyone from the Pentagon to Chad's leaders to the French government was perplexed. The U.S. has praised Chad's cooperation on counterterrorism, especially its campaign against a vicious Boko Haram insurgency spilling over from Nigeria.

As it turns out, a seemingly pedestrian issue was largely to blame: Chad had run out of passport paper.
Got a cite for the 800 mile claim?

Last edited by running coach; 10-21-2017 at 07:51 PM.
  #47  
Old 10-21-2017, 08:10 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Got a cite for the 800 mile claim?
Chad troops were in Diffa. US troops killed - 120 miles north of Niamey.

Look at the map. I guess I was wrong. It is more like 900 to 1000 miles. Maddow, as usual, is full of crap.

Last edited by Okrahoma; 10-21-2017 at 08:10 PM.
  #48  
Old 10-21-2017, 08:46 PM
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,492
Maddow is not full of crap, which was demonstrated to you above. She explained why Chad was included in the ban, and why their troops were pulled out. Note the caution that we don't know (and don't know means... don't know) if there is any connection between the troop withdrawal and the ambush. That said, troop withdrawals do not happen in only one spot, and certainly one could expect a rolling effect across a region when 100s of troops are moved. (My comment, not hers.)

Do go on bashing Rachel Maddow, however. She only won 2 Emmy's last year for her work in news. I'm sure that's a fluke. Your expertise is what again? Oh yeah, Internet troll. Carry on.
  #49  
Old 10-21-2017, 08:48 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Complete and utter bullshit (of course, it's Maddow so that's just normal for her). Chad's forces, before they were withdrawn, were 800 miles away from where this happened, and there to fight Boko Haram and not AlQueda and ISIS-affiliated militants out of Mali. Never were anywhere close to this area.
What she said may be bullshit, but my impression is that troops in Africa often have access to "boots," "trucks," and sometimes even "planes," all of which allow them to move from one place to another. So that, for example, if Chad removes troops from one area of the nation, Niger may relocate its own soldiers to the vacated regions. A result of such relocation of troops may be that the area previously occupied may be more vulnerable to attacks.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 10-21-2017 at 08:50 PM.
  #50  
Old 10-21-2017, 09:04 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,189
We're a little short of facts to get to the bottom of the incident Chad. I won't be surprised to find out that it's the result of military incompetence, even all the way to the top of the chain of command. I only expect more bullshit about it the closer we get to the top. If we begin to look at the record we'll see an extraordinary number of unforced errors by the military, unless you consider the ineptitude of commanders-in-chief to be the force. Even in that case the number is still too high considering the reverence so many hold for the commanders in uniform.

And to get back to the main topic, Kelly has been silent about the defense from Hucksterbee Sanders about his lies. Has the man any character at all?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017