- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FBI Schedules Interviews w/ Congressional Seditious Six
Posted on 11/26/25 at 5:31 am to northshorebamaman
Posted on 11/26/25 at 5:31 am to northshorebamaman
Again planting a seed was a handful of jerkoffs.
Only one set of people sent a veiled threat.
Threats are threats.
I don't understand your playing gotcha
Only one set of people sent a veiled threat.
Threats are threats.
I don't understand your playing gotcha
1
Posted on 11/26/25 at 5:37 am to Jbird
This isn’t a gotcha. It's mechanical logic.
You said a Senator’s comment could “make a junior enlisted guy balk” and “cause hesitation.”
Yet you also quoted Meyer saying Democrats have “no confidence in the military to follow lawful orders.”
Pick one.
You said a Senator’s comment could “make a junior enlisted guy balk” and “cause hesitation.”
Yet you also quoted Meyer saying Democrats have “no confidence in the military to follow lawful orders.”
Pick one.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 5:42 am to northshorebamaman
You said the troops could “balk,” “hesitate,” or believe they’re “following illegal orders” based on a Senator’s comment.
That is explicitly a claim that the military can be influenced and confused by political statements.
Meyer’s complaint was that Democrats saying that shows “no confidence in the military.”
You making the same claim Meyer accused Democrats of.
Two mutually exclusive claims cannot both be true.
That is explicitly a claim that the military can be influenced and confused by political statements.
Meyer’s complaint was that Democrats saying that shows “no confidence in the military.”
You making the same claim Meyer accused Democrats of.
Two mutually exclusive claims cannot both be true.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 5:47 am to northshorebamaman
Both.
They are democrats it's both
Disdain for the military compounds the actions of the Dems.
It was exactly what Meyer said as well.
They are democrats it's both
Disdain for the military compounds the actions of the Dems.
It was exactly what Meyer said as well.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 5:55 am to northshorebamaman
quote:No it isn't. Your association is no more accurate than is a claim that actions of Bradley Manning, Bowe Bergdahl, or Nidal Hasan are representative of the military.
That is explicitly a claim that the military can be influenced and confused by political statements.
OTOH, a claim that individuals in the military can be influenced and confused by political statements is not even disputable.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:01 am to Jbird
quote:Both?
Both.
They are democrats it's both
Disdain for the military compounds the actions of the Dems.
It was exactly what Meyer said as well.
Your positions and claims:
-Meyer said Dems have “no confidence in the military to follow lawful orders.”
-A senator’s comments can “make a junior enlisted guy balk” and “cause hesitation.”
-Dems are wrong for doubting the military’s discipline.
-You also explicitly doubt the military's discipline.
The only way you can logically support all four is if you are also a Democrat.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:02 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
That is explicitly a claim that the military can be influenced and confused by political statements.
There are military people in back channel cahoots with these politicians. This is the first shot in an effort at Trump again. I'm sure there are numbers of left leaning, pissed off military officers who loathe Hegseth/Trump.
This post was edited on 11/26/25 at 6:09 am
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:04 am to northshorebamaman
Boolean algebra doesn't apply.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:09 am to NC_Tigah
Then Meyer’s doesn't claim doesn't hold.
You just solved the contradiction for me.
You just solved the contradiction for me.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:12 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:Then Democrats are correct for suggesting the military can't be trusted to follow lawful orders.
There are military people in back channel cahoots with these politicians. This is the first shot in an effort at Trump again. I'm sure there are numbers of left leaning, pissed off military officers who loathe Hegseth/Trump.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:18 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
Then Democrats are correct for suggesting the military can't be trusted to follow lawful orders.
The next set of charges in the next impeachment with a dozen officers in dress uniforms with all the medals and a bunch of raging democrats seeking the truth about the unlawful orders.
And the republicans in the minority but enough pissed off republicans to muster the necessary votes.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:22 am to aTmTexas Dillo
Thanks but completely irrelevant to my point.
The contradiction is still the same
The contradiction is still the same
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:22 am to northshorebamaman
quote:No.
You just solved the contradiction for me.
Both statements can be true
quote:
folks here seems to be on ignoring messaging.
But in light of admissions on the part of the participants that no illegal orders have been issued, there are but two remaining bases for the PSA, i.e., its messaging. Both of those bases should be very alarming.
(1) The past experiences of the group in intel and the military (which they heavily emphasized in the PSA) are that those organizations have been so institutionally lax as to leave members confused about needing to follow illegal orders.
(2) The group put the message out to suggest our military command will likely issue illegal orders in the future. That message would be designed to undercut our military leadership, structure, and therefore the United States.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:29 am to NC_Tigah
You can’t call it dangerous to suggest the military won’t follow orders and then justify it by saying the military might not follow orders.
That’s the contradiction. Try to stay on it.
That’s the contradiction. Try to stay on it.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:30 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
(2) The group put the message out to suggest our military command will likely issue illegal orders in the future.
Slotkin insinuates there are military members who think illegal orders have/will be given.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:36 am to northshorebamaman
Lol Boolean algebra for the win.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:42 am to Jbird
quote:This is extremely simple. it's causing you to respond like this because your position is directly opposed to basic logic and you have no response.
Lol Boolean algebra for the win.
-It is dangerous to suggest the troops can't be trusted to follow lawful orders
-the danger is that troops can't be trusted to follow lawful orders
you can either square those two statements or you can't.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:51 am to northshorebamaman
quote:No, that's not exactly what is being asserted.
You can’t call it dangerous to suggest the military won’t follow orders and then justify it by saying the military might not follow orders.
What is being asserted is the claim or premise that illegal orders have been issued, or might be issued, could influence confused individuals in the military into taking inappropriate actions. Examples of such confused or conflicted individuals in the military were cited earlier in the thread. The question is "Can CIA style propaganda influence outcome in instances like this?" That is what was engaged, and the answer is obviously "yes".
This post was edited on 11/26/25 at 7:03 am
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:54 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:Yet there are individuals on this board who claim those insinuations are irrelevant, because you can parse her words, and they don't specifically say what she obviously meant.
Slotkin insinuates there are military members who think illegal orders have/will be given.
Posted on 11/26/25 at 6:56 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Inappropriate actions such as?
What is being asserted is the claim or premise that illegal orders have been issued, or might be issued, could influence confused individuals in the military into taking inappropriate actions.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News