Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Since Jackie is just a shill he doesn't have to retract
There wasn't a moment when there was any reflection or any back checking. The outrage was total, instantaneous, and overflowed the banks of reason.
All of the networks were lying he claimed. He said he was watching the guy on CNN who acted like McMaster hadn't come out and said anything.
From his post;
"None other than National Security Adviser Ret General HR McMaster, (Who, by the way, was actually in the Oval Office during the meeting), came out and gave a special statement saying that the reports are 100 percent false.
Of course, this isn't stopping CNN, MSN, AOL, Yahoo, and MSNBC from still reporting the lie. After all, McMaster will lie, won't he. Mr "Unamed Source" has much more credibility.
I'm watching CNN right now. The host Don Lemon is reporting the lie like McMaster never even came out and gave his statement."
Nothing like having an objective observer report on reporting.
White Housenational security adviser H.R. McMaster just emerged from the White House to declare that The Washington Post's story aboutTrumpgiving highly classified information to Russia "as reported, is false." But the rest of McMaster's statement made clear he wasn't actually denying the report. And his entire brief statement -- punctuated by McMaster walking away without taking shouted questions -- speaks volumes
Here's what McMaster said:
"There's nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false. The president and the foreign minister [Sergey Lavrov] reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time -- at no time -- were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember it being the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. And I was in the room. It didn't happen."
McMaster says that "at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed." But The Post's reporting doesn't say that they were. Instead, the report states clearly only that Trump discussed an Islamic State plot and the city where the plot was detected by an intelligence-gathering partner. Officials worried that this information could lead to the discovery of the methods and sources involved, but it didn't say Trump discussed them. McMaster's statement that "the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known" is in the same vein -- suggesting The Post has reported something that it hasn't in order to deny something.Military operations aren't even alluded to in the story.
At the end, McMaster refers to his own account and that of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and says, "I was in the room. It didn't happen." But again, he seems to be saying that the thing that didn't happen is something The Post never actually reported. At no point in his statement to The Post before the story went live or in his appearance in front of reporters afterward does McMaster say, 'President Trump didn't share classified information with Russia' or anything close to it
This is actually pretty par-for-course for the White House. When the media has reported based on anonymous sources in the intelligence community, the White House will often deny the reports without pointing to any specifics in the reporting.
White House press secretarySean Spicerback in February denied an Associated Press report that said a Department of Homeland Security memo showed the administration considered deploying the National Guard to rein in illegal immigration. The White House apparently didn't respond to requests for comment before the story went live. And we later found out that the memo was preliminary, but real.
Spicer issued a similar, "100 percent" denial a few weeks back when The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration had sought to block fired former acting attorney generalSally Yatesfrom testifying before Congress by arguing that her conversations with the president were privileged. But documents showed the administration had indeed asserted such privilege. It was simply rejected by Yates' lawyer:
"David O'Neil, an attorney for Yates, met at the Justice Department to discuss the issue with government officials on Thursday. At the meeting, O'Neil presented a letter in which he said the Justice Department had "advised" him that Yates's official communications on issues of interest to the House panel are "client confidences" that cannot be disclosed without written consent. O'Neil challenged that interpretation as "overbroad" in the letter." We'll see if the White House actually wants to quibble with any specifics in The Post's reporting. So far, they haven't cited anything specific that's false. And that's pretty telling
That all being said,
he has done his job. He hyped the story, misrepresented the information by inserting his own plot line and then doubled down with;
"Any Reputable News Organization would run a retraction, and admit that they got scammed. Now we know jackie won't admit or even acknowledge that the Post story was accurate. This is a guy who won't acknowledge that contact between the Russians and trump's campaign people happened.
But I guess the Washington Post is going for the title held by CNN as "King of Fake News". Here is his attempt at discrediting 2 of the most reliable sources there are. I didn't say perfect but both correct or retract if needed. His take on information is naive at best and proof that paid trolls aren't needed when there are pretty of volenteers who will do this as a labor of love.
When one of the most respected men in the Country comes out and says,....."the story is false", it's difficult to hold the high ground." Tough to hold this type of high ground when you ignore all of the information or selectively pass on just the part that backs your "story"
So don't hold your breath waiting for a retraction that he demanded from others but is unwilling to give himself.
But his plan worked. He got the outrage into the trump base
Yea,be like if you asked your wife if she was having an affair and she replied that she is a great mother. Most would scratch their head at such a stupid fucking answer. Not our Trump lovers, that answer was somehow validation
I'll say it again. Jackie has his own agenda. The Post article clearly explains that no one lied (in the Post story and McMaster's statement).
Jackie either truly doesn't understand what he reads or the answer is much more nefarious.
In other words, he is an unintentional shill or a methodical shill.
For the last couple of years, he has posted many outrageous "stories" about Obama and Clinton. He floats the stories, pushes them, and then when proven wrong he doesn't do what he demands of news organizations. He claims the only honorable action is to retract when proven wrong. When stories resurface with no new info he is right there to push them again.
He has demonstrated, too many times to count, that he doesn't have the tiniest shred of honor.
He is a cocksucking, unrepentant birther (like trump).
I.E. A Fox shill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
There wasn't a moment when there was any reflection or any back checking. The outrage was total, instantaneous, and overflowed the banks of reason.
All of the networks were lying he claimed. He said he was watching the guy on CNN who acted like McMaster hadn't come out and said anything.
From his post;
"None other than National Security Adviser Ret General HR McMaster, (Who, by the way, was actually in the Oval Office during the meeting), came out and gave a special statement saying that the reports are 100 percent false.
Of course, this isn't stopping CNN, MSN, AOL, Yahoo, and MSNBC from still reporting the lie. After all, McMaster will lie, won't he. Mr "Unamed Source" has much more credibility.
I'm watching CNN right now. The host Don Lemon is reporting the lie like McMaster never even came out and gave his statement."
Nothing like having an objective observer report on reporting.
White Housenational security adviser H.R. McMaster just emerged from the White House to declare that The Washington Post's story aboutTrumpgiving highly classified information to Russia "as reported, is false." But the rest of McMaster's statement made clear he wasn't actually denying the report. And his entire brief statement -- punctuated by McMaster walking away without taking shouted questions -- speaks volumes
Here's what McMaster said:
"There's nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false. The president and the foreign minister [Sergey Lavrov] reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time -- at no time -- were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember it being the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. And I was in the room. It didn't happen."
McMaster says that "at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed." But The Post's reporting doesn't say that they were. Instead, the report states clearly only that Trump discussed an Islamic State plot and the city where the plot was detected by an intelligence-gathering partner. Officials worried that this information could lead to the discovery of the methods and sources involved, but it didn't say Trump discussed them. McMaster's statement that "the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known" is in the same vein -- suggesting The Post has reported something that it hasn't in order to deny something.Military operations aren't even alluded to in the story.
At the end, McMaster refers to his own account and that of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and says, "I was in the room. It didn't happen." But again, he seems to be saying that the thing that didn't happen is something The Post never actually reported. At no point in his statement to The Post before the story went live or in his appearance in front of reporters afterward does McMaster say, 'President Trump didn't share classified information with Russia' or anything close to it
This is actually pretty par-for-course for the White House. When the media has reported based on anonymous sources in the intelligence community, the White House will often deny the reports without pointing to any specifics in the reporting.
White House press secretarySean Spicerback in February denied an Associated Press report that said a Department of Homeland Security memo showed the administration considered deploying the National Guard to rein in illegal immigration. The White House apparently didn't respond to requests for comment before the story went live. And we later found out that the memo was preliminary, but real.
Spicer issued a similar, "100 percent" denial a few weeks back when The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration had sought to block fired former acting attorney generalSally Yatesfrom testifying before Congress by arguing that her conversations with the president were privileged. But documents showed the administration had indeed asserted such privilege. It was simply rejected by Yates' lawyer:
"David O'Neil, an attorney for Yates, met at the Justice Department to discuss the issue with government officials on Thursday. At the meeting, O'Neil presented a letter in which he said the Justice Department had "advised" him that Yates's official communications on issues of interest to the House panel are "client confidences" that cannot be disclosed without written consent. O'Neil challenged that interpretation as "overbroad" in the letter." We'll see if the White House actually wants to quibble with any specifics in The Post's reporting. So far, they haven't cited anything specific that's false. And that's pretty telling
That all being said,
he has done his job. He hyped the story, misrepresented the information by inserting his own plot line and then doubled down with;
"Any Reputable News Organization would run a retraction, and admit that they got scammed. Now we know jackie won't admit or even acknowledge that the Post story was accurate. This is a guy who won't acknowledge that contact between the Russians and trump's campaign people happened.
But I guess the Washington Post is going for the title held by CNN as "King of Fake News". Here is his attempt at discrediting 2 of the most reliable sources there are. I didn't say perfect but both correct or retract if needed. His take on information is naive at best and proof that paid trolls aren't needed when there are pretty of volenteers who will do this as a labor of love.
When one of the most respected men in the Country comes out and says,....."the story is false", it's difficult to hold the high ground." Tough to hold this type of high ground when you ignore all of the information or selectively pass on just the part that backs your "story"
So don't hold your breath waiting for a retraction that he demanded from others but is unwilling to give himself.
But his plan worked. He got the outrage into the trump base
Popular song. Not my kind of song, but apparently a lot of people have that mindset.
Off topic, but one line in that song kinda irks me. "My grandfather fought in World War Two, My Daddy in Vietnam".
You hear polititians say much of the same thing, "my (fill in the blank), is a Veteran". Big deal. What does that have to do with you. Have you ever served? Have you ever been shot at? Have you ever got your legs blown all to shit?
Living with the consequences of being sent into harms way is not something that is hereditary and passed on from one generation to the next.
Popular song. Not my kind of song, but apparently a lot of people have that mindset.
Off topic, but one line in that song kinda irks me. "My grandfather fought in World War Two, My Daddy in Vietnam".
You hear polititians say much of the same thing, "my (fill in the blank), is a Veteran". Big deal. What does that have to do with you. Have you ever served? Have you ever been shot at? Have you ever got your legs blown all to shit?
Living with the consequences of being sent into harms way is not something that is hereditary and passed on from one generation to the next.
Rant over.
Kinda like when shrilLIARy said that she " tried " to join the Marines and " dodged sniper fire in Kosovo " !
Popular song. Not my kind of song, but apparently a lot of people have that mindset.
Off topic, but one line in that song kinda irks me. "My grandfather fought in World War Two, My Daddy in Vietnam".
You hear polititians say much of the same thing, "my (fill in the blank), is a Veteran". Big deal. What does that have to do with you. Have you ever served? Have you ever been shot at? Have you ever got your legs blown all to shit?
Living with the consequences of being sent into harms way is not something that is hereditary and passed on from one generation to the next.
Rant over.
you have to conceder the source it came from Jackie
Retarded Lenny the of retarded camels !
Popular song. Not my kind of song, but apparently a lot of people have that mindset.
Off topic, but one line in that song kinda irks me. "My grandfather fought in World War Two, My Daddy in Vietnam".
You hear polititians say much of the same thing, "my (fill in the blank), is a Veteran". Big deal. What does that have to do with you. Have you ever served? Have you ever been shot at? Have you ever got your legs blown all to shit?
Living with the consequences of being sent into harms way is not something that is hereditary and passed on from one generation to the next.
Rant over.
I served, never had your troubles.
That is all you need to know.
I'll say it again. Jackie has his own agenda. The Post article clearly explains that no one lied (in the Post story and McMaster's statement).
Jackie either truly doesn't understand what he reads or the answer is much more nefarious.
In other words, he is an unintentional shill or a methodical shill.
For the last couple of years, he has posted many outrageous "stories" about Obama and Clinton. He floats the stories, pushes them, and then when proven wrong he doesn't do what he demands of news organizations. He claims the only honorable action is to retract when proven wrong. When stories resurface with no new info he is right there to push them again.
He has demonstrated, too many times to count, that he doesn't have the tiniest shred of honor.
He is a cocksucking, unrepentant birther (like trump).
I.E. A Fox shill.
Translation: Blah, blah, blah ...
You're a real class act, aren't you?
For starters, Jackie pointed out (post #4) that he had posted a thread within which you could have babbled your dissent. He posts his opinions, some of them strongly held (as is the case with most of us). If you disagree with him, fine. Offer up a reasoned rebuttal, if you're capable of doing so, and in the already existing thread.
But that's not good enough for you, is it?
Of course not; you're an attention-seeking, annoying troll. Grow up.
Since Jackie is just a shill he doesn't have to retract
of retarded camels !
